backtop


Print 285 comment(s) - last by HrilL.. on Sep 25 at 9:56 PM


A map of the sea ice increase from the same month last year
Increase twice the size of Germany: "colder weather" to blame.

Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has indicated a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany.

With the Arctic melting season over for 2008, ice cover will continue to increase until melting begins anew next spring.

The data is for August 2008 and indicates a total sea ice area of six million square kilometers. Ice extent for the same month in 2007 covered 5.3 million square kilometers, a historic low. Earlier this year, media accounts were rife with predictions that this year would again see a new record. Instead, the Arctic has seen a gain of about thirteen percent.

William Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Research Center at the University of Illinois, tells DailyTech that this year the Arctic was "definitely colder" than 2007. Chapman also says part of the reason for the large ice loss in 2007 was strong winds from Siberia, which affect both ice formation and drift, forcing ice into warmer waters where it melts.

Earlier predictions were also wrong because researchers thought thinner ice would melt faster in subsequent years. Instead, according to the NSIDC, the new ice had less snow coverage to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, resulting in a faster rate of ice growth.

Most concern has focused on the Arctic regions, rather than Antarctica. Recent research has indicated Antarctica is on a long-term cooling trend, for reasons which remain unclear.

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.



Comments     Threshold


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

By jjunos on 9/3/2008 3:15:10 PM , Rating: 4
Arctic ice shelf splits; ice loss 10x expected this summer

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-arct...

Isn't that the opposite feel of what Masher is saying here? I'm not an eco scientist btw...




By geddarkstorm on 9/3/2008 4:54:39 PM , Rating: 3
Look at the satellite imagery: the ice increased towards Russia and decreased from around Greenland and that particular island. The total ice mass in the entire arctic has increased by 13% according to this article, while the local ice mass near that island decreased, according to that article.


By omnicronx on 9/4/2008 9:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
BBC just released this article yesterday
quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7595441....
quote:
The ice shelves in Canada's High Arctic have lost a colossal area this year, scientists report.

Masher, while I do agree with much of what you say, an increase in Greenland does not constitute the title of this article. While I would have to say that this melting has been ongoing for the past 100 years, this summer was apparently worse than usual, and does not match your findings that as a whole the Arctic has had a major gain in ice coverage.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2008 9:52:11 AM , Rating: 1
> "and does not match your findings that as a whole the Arctic has had a major gain in ice coverage"

They're not mine-- They are they official figures of the NSIDC. I encourage anyone who disbelieves to go to their site and generate the same graphics as I did.

The BBC article (and many similar ones) simply chose to ignore the year-to-year gain in total ice coverage, and instead limit their coverage to only those areas which experienced gain.

The areas around Nothern Canada (the Northwest passage) experienced some Y2Y loss, but the Arctic as a whole experienced a very large gain. You can see this from the images above.


By omnicronx on 9/4/2008 11:05:08 AM , Rating: 3
I understand what you are saying, but considering that this years temperatures were lower than normal than the past few years, and this shelf loss still occurred and is at an all time low is quite worrisome. The gain on the Siberia side for all we know can be fully attributed to the fact that the trade winds that they had last year were non existent this year.

I don't mean to dispute the findings, I just think that all the evidence is so inconclusive on all sides, that nobody can really claim that they know whats going on here. Natural occurrences like trade winds have been happening for thousands of years, just as rapid heating and cooling. Until we separate previous trends from new an unseen occurrences, I don't think I can side either way.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2008 11:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
Temperatures this year are *colder* than last year.

Temperatures this year are *warmer* than those from 100 years ago.

Temperatures this year are *colder* than those from 10,000 years ago.

Temperatures this year are *warmer* than those from 1,000,000 years ago.

Which of these is the correct period to say what "normal" temperatures are?


By omnicronx on 9/4/2008 3:06:32 PM , Rating: 3
Normal was a very poor choice of words, especially when you consider my second statement.

My point was our understanding of Arctic temperature trends is minuscule. We have no absolute understanding of why the earth was colder 10,000 years ago (yes I know it was the last ice age, but do we know why it happened), or why the earth was warmer 1,000,000 years ago. Until we can figure this out, yearly trends are meaningless, because as you stated already, what is "normal"?

Our understandings of such events end at (for example)'an ice age happens when more snow falls than melts' and I find this a big problem, especially with the countless reports that we see each week, all of which contradict each other, and none of which have provided us with any sort of definitive temperature model.


By dgingeri on 9/10/2008 7:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
My biggest point in the global warming debate is this: Why is it people keep touting that man is causing this when the models they use don't figure in the change in sunlight and solar wind, which can vary by up to 8%, but push and push on the variation of CO2, which can affect the insulative value of the atmosphere by .3-.5%?

It's like someone arguing on a car catching on fire, blaming it on the flammability of the paint, and completely ignore the gasoline.


By Quantem on 9/13/2008 8:38:46 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly.
Science knows essentially nothing about global climate(or weather prediction), and it will be a long while before this changes.
Global warming/cooling is a chimaera. This entire debate is about self-serving political and economic agendas. The ozone hole scam was the same.


By Procurion on 9/10/2008 10:18:02 AM , Rating: 2
Why do the poor cavemen and others responsible for recording all those temperatures from hundreds and thousands of years ago never get any credit for their work? They established "normal" temperatures and all that we draw comparisons from to generate data.

I would like to see more of the hard work done for all these years rewarded with at least a mention for them in the articles published constantly that show such detailed temperatures from 800 AD or say from the sampling and analysis done by the native aborigines in South America during the 11th century......


By foolsgambit11 on 9/4/2008 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
Okay. I did it. I didn't really disbelieve your evidence, but I went there. Then I disbelieved your evidence.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

First, they note that this is now officially the second worst summer since the satellite age began. Their picture (of Aug 26, 2008) shows substantially less ice coverage than the picture you used (your picture from early August, perhaps? I hope you used the same date in 2007.) Also, their official figure for ice coverage on that date is 5.26 million square kilometers, which is only 430,000 square kilometers more than the same date last year - not the 700,000 you use. That would put the ice coverage in late August 2007 at 4.83 million square kilometers, not the 5.3 million square kilometers you used. I still believe you didn't falsify your numbers. I assume their from early August. Why did you use that data when newer data was available? Considering this data was a week old when you posted the article, there's really no excuse.

You also failed to mention that coverage is almost 2 million square kilometers below the 1979-2000 average.

I'm not saying the most recent data is conclusive support that we're all going to die in a massive tsunami. But it would have been nice if you'd either posted this a month ago, or used the most recent data.

Also, the ice continued to melt through September last year. The average coverage in September 2007 was 4.28 million square kilometers, demonstrating a continued loss of sea ice. As such, I'd say your statement,
quote:
With the Arctic melting season over for 2008, ice cover will continue to increase until melting begins anew next spring.
was inaccurate. My guess is, we'll see ice fall below 5 million square kilometers before the month is over.

So my real question to you is, did you think nobody would call your bluff?


By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2008 2:24:52 PM , Rating: 2
> "So my real question to you is, did you think nobody would call your bluff? "

Honestly, I didn't think data comprehension would be that difficult for most people. Perhaps I was wrong. The data I gave was not for "early August", they were for the entire month . The image you cite (and the one the NSIDC understandably chose to highlight) was data for one single day of that month.

There is no "newer data". This article was written the day after the full August dataset became available.

If you want to regenerate the same images I did, go to to following link, clink of Ice extent, choose Aug 2007 and 2008, and hit the button:

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

And yes, on a full-month basis, the melting season is over. It stops gemerally in the latter half of September, and reverts again to growth.


By porkpie on 9/4/2008 2:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think that qualifies as a smack-down.


By Andy35W on 9/4/2008 3:33:33 PM , Rating: 3
NSIDC etc do not declare the melting season over because there is not a full month of melt, only you do this.

To quote NSIDC on the 27th

"With several weeks left in the melt season"

Only you are calling the result now, with this artificial cut-off as it suits your purpose.

Regards

Andy


By pliny on 9/5/2008 12:43:50 AM , Rating: 3
There is a new report today from NSIDC (your source), dated Sept 4th. Under the heading
"Record ice loss in August" they say:
quote:
Following a record rate of ice loss through the month of August, Arctic sea ice extent already stands as the second-lowest on record, further reinforcing conclusions that the Arctic sea ice cover is in a long-term state of decline. With approximately two weeks left in the melt season, the possibility of setting a new record annual minimum in September remains open.

and
quote:
Extent is now within 370,000 square kilometers (140,000 square miles) of last year’s value on the same date and is 2.08 million square kilometers (800,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

Hard to reconcile with your headline and article, based allegedly on this source.


By porkpie on 9/5/2008 1:04:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hard to reconcile with your headline and article
Only for people who can't read. There's no contradiction. See how it says "second-lowest"? Since the lowest was the year earlier, it obviously means the ice grew this year.

That article chose to not explicitly point out there's more ice this year than last year, since it wouldn't sound as scary.


By pliny on 9/5/2008 1:24:03 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
There's no contradiction.

?? Who can't read? Michael says:
quote:
With the Arctic melting season over for 2008, ice cover will continue to increase until melting begins anew next spring.

NSIDC says Sept 4:http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
quote:
With approximately two weeks left in the melt season, the possibility of setting a new record annual minimum in September remains open.

Masher says the sea ice put on 700000 sq km (2 Germanies). NSIDC says:
quote:
Extent is now within 370,000 square kilometers (140,000 square miles) of last year’s value on the same. date


By porkpie on 9/5/2008 1:38:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
?? Who can't read?
You. See the word "August" on the graphic for this story? See the date "9/3/2008" on the graphic for the other story?

The numbers here are the average for ALL August. The numbers there are for a single DAY in SEPTEMBER.

The melting season for monthly data is over. Before Sept data is out, the ice is going to be growing again.

/sigh.


By grenableu on 9/5/2008 1:30:06 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Only for people who can't read.
There seem to be a lot of them lately doesn't there? I don't know why so many people are having such a problem figuring this out. Did IQs drop recently?


By realitybytes on 9/5/2008 2:14:12 AM , Rating: 3
Oh, NOW I get it... you are using the AVERAGE for the month... I'm not sure why, since the data for the end of the month is just as available, and more useful.

(by using an average, you aren't reporting the ice extent only; you're also including a factor of melt acceleration as well, which can be different from year to year; yet you aren't making it known which part of the difference is the extent, and which part is the acceleration of the rate of melting)


By masher2 (blog) on 9/5/2008 11:22:07 AM , Rating: 1
> "you are using the AVERAGE for the month... I'm not sure why"

A single day's data to show a climate trend is not very useful. Humorously enough, when I used monthly averages in a previous story on temperature trends, many people chose to complain the period was too short, and that without averaging at least a full year or two, the results were meaningless.

The fact remains that whether one looks at an August average, or any single day in August, total ice extent is higher this year than last. Had I chosen Aug 1, I would have gotten a larger delta. Had I chose Aug 31, a smaller one. Instead, I used the monthly average -- which NSIDC itself calculates and uses -- to get a more indicative figure.


By foolsgambit11 on 9/5/2008 12:32:08 PM , Rating: 2
You're absolutely right. Even the NSIDC says that monthly averages are more useful than daily shots. I apologize for my misplaced criticism. Others' criticism - that you have failed to point out that the ice extent minimum has yet to be reached, and that the pace of ice loss was faster this year than last, are still valid critiques, I'd say. It's the same kind of fact cherry-picking that gets us articles that say, "the ice will be gone this year!!! OMG!"

NSIDC also points out, in the section, "Interpretation Resources",
quote:
Interannual variability in extent is large: for example, a record minimum in September of 1995 was followed by very high extent the next year. Globally, the annual variation of sea ice area is about 37% of the mean (Gloersen et al. 1999). Because of this, it is difficult to infer long-term trends from short observational records, or to deduce the influence of possible natural oscillations in ice extent. The great variability in ice extent is especially noticeable in maps depicting the frequency of occurrence of sea ice.

That, roughly translated, means, "you can't really imply anything based on August, one way or the other."

I know that's not what you were trying to do, you were focused on debunking the "Arctic ice may be gone this year" story. But plenty of people here have decided to read more into the story.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/5/2008 1:07:31 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
But plenty of people here have decided to read more into the story.
You're absolutely correct; this story was intended to indicate only one thing only -- that the Arctic was colder this year, and the alarmism earlier this summer was misplaced. Long-term, the Arctic will most certainly disappear, completing a process which began when the last ice age ended.


By jbartabas on 9/5/2008 12:49:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A single day's data to show a climate trend is not very useful. Humorously enough, when I used monthly averages in a previous story on temperature trends, many people chose to complain the period was too short, and that without averaging at least a full year or two, the results were meaningless.


Taking about one day or one month means the same as temperature in term of climate trend: nothing. Your little story was okay until now, but if now you start to pretend that it implies anything about climate trend, that's you're little blog which turn out to be pretty humorous.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/5/2008 1:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "Taking about one day or one month means the same as temperature in term of climate trend: nothing"

To correct one thing, this isn't "one month" of data. The span is one year, the delta is calculated by monthly averages. And it indicates one thing clearly -- that this year was colder than the last, a conclusion borne out by the statement from the UIUC Arctic researcher I interviewed.

Long-term, there's no reason to believe this change, however, is anything but an abberation. The Arctic began melting 20,000 years ago: a process that paleoclimatic history tells us will not end until it has disappeared entirely.


By jbartabas on 9/5/2008 1:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
To correct one thing, this isn't "one month" of data. The span is one year, the delta is calculated by monthly averages. And it indicates one thing clearly -- that this year was colder than the last, a conclusion borne out by the statement from the UIUC Arctic researcher I interviewed.


Again, you missed the point. One year span compared to the last 1 year span does not mean anything in terms of trend. It just shows the year-to-year variability. Actually your article did not pretend anything about climate trend, and your last answers to foolsgambit11 neither. So why did you have to bring it to your previous comment ... ?


By masher2 (blog) on 9/5/2008 2:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
> "Again, you missed the point..."

No, you're either not reading or not comprehending my replies. I specifically said this data is meaningful only in establishing that this year was colder than the prior (interannual variability) and to debunk previous alarmist reporting.

I have also repeatedly stated this is meaningless in respect to the long-term trend, which will most certainly culminate in the disappearance of Arctic ice entirely. It's been melting for 20,000 years, neither one or thirty year's worth of data means much beside that.

How much more clear can I be?


By jbartabas on 9/5/2008 2:43:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
No, you're either not reading or not comprehending my replies. I specifically said this data is meaningful only in establishing that this year was colder than the prior (interannual variability) and to debunk previous alarmist reporting.


I am definitely reading, so it must be the other option. That part is clear, definitely. This issue is not only what you wrote, i.e.:
quote:
To correct one thing, this isn't "one month" of data. The span is one year, the delta is calculated by monthly averages.

but also that it was answering
quote:
Taking about one day or one month means the same as temperature in term of climate trend: nothing


Now it is clear that you've made the precision for accuracy purpose, and not to suggest that a 1 year span would make sense to interpret a trend.

I won't comment on the terms debunk and alarmists that are irrelevant here ...


By The Night Owl on 9/5/2008 8:29:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And yes, on a full-month basis, the melting season is over. It stops gemerally in the latter half of September, and reverts again to growth.


What does that even mean? You write the oddest things sometimes.


By foolsgambit11 on 9/5/2008 12:48:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Honestly, I didn't think data comprehension would be that difficult for most people. Perhaps I was wrong. The data I gave was not for "early August", they were for the entire month . The image you cite (and the one the NSIDC understandably chose to highlight) was data for one single day of that month.
I'd also like to point out, though, that the images you cite, the ones you'd understandably want to highlight, are the data for sea ice extent. The sea ice concentration images for August 2007/2008 are more discouraging, and show why the ice extent has been decreasing faster this year than last in August - there's a lot more thin ice this year than last.

I can't find any estimate of the actual volume of sea ice - I suppose that would be hard to calculate. But it would be an interesting metric, and probably pretty valuable in determining how fast the ice is melting. Maybe the data is there on the site. Anybody help me? (Since apparently data comprehension isn't my strong suit....)


By whiskerwill on 9/4/2008 3:50:43 PM , Rating: 2
You need some help reading charts and graphs there, guy.


By porkpie on 9/5/2008 1:42:34 AM , Rating: 2
I'm through explaining it them. The first person or two, I thought they were just trolling, but they just really don't get it.


By Andy35W on 9/5/2008 3:51:12 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm through explaining it them. The first person or two, I thought they were just trolling, but they just really don't get it.


We do get it, Masher has taken the average for August but that is rather pointless as an end point as the melt is continuing and 2008 has had fast rate of loss during the latter half of August than 2007. So the average is useless.

Indeed the main NSIDC graph on the front page shows not a monthly average but a 5 day average

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

see

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...

Here's another graph of comparison between years ( and yes I can read graphs thanks)

http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/6272/iceextentd...

Currently 2007 is approximately 400 000km^2 more than 2007 and 750 000+ less than other recent years. Although the melt season is apparently "over" for the month yesterday another 50 000km^2 disappeared.

Regards

Andy


By masher2 (blog) on 9/5/2008 11:33:26 AM , Rating: 1
> "So the average is useless"

Monthly ice melt averages are not 'useless'; indeed the NSIDC calculates and uses them on a regular basis, much more so than 5-day averages. For all climate research, you typically use the longest mean possible for the problem at hand. To show a difference in ice coverage between 2007 and 2008, a yearly average would be even better -- but 2008 isn't yet complete, so a monthly value is the best we have.

Amusingly enough, when I used monthly averages to demonstrate a rapid drop in global temperatures, you yourself again complained it was meaningless -- but because the period was far too short, rather than far too long:
quote:
What are you trying to show here, that there is some fluctuation year on year ? I agree, but it's not relevant. Only the trend is relevant. That seems to be going upwards.
At least then, your point had a kernel of truth. Monthly data isn't useless obviously, but annual data *is* more relevant. But the notion that a single day's results are somehow more valuable and indicative than an average for an entire month is, of course, severely flawed.


By Andy35W on 9/5/2008 12:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
Well what does your month tell us then?

It seems to tell us that the difference this year is 700 000 km^2 between 2008 and 2008 when the actual value of 4th September is actually a lot less than.

Rather than taking a slice when you have incorrectly determined melt has stopped, just take the whole year as given by multiple graphs

Extent

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_S...

Area

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...

There's no 700 000 km^2 there I'm afraid .....

And for NH anomaly

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea...

As you say, longer time periods are better and the above shows that, but if you are going to pick a particular year then at least take the whole year into account and not cut it short.

Regards

Andy


By Andy35W on 9/5/2008 12:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
erata ...

between 2007 and 2008

Doh!

:D

Regards

Andy


By jbartabas on 9/5/2008 1:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Monthly ice melt averages are not 'useless'; indeed the NSIDC calculates and uses them on a regular basis, much more so than 5-day averages. For all climate research, you typically use the longest mean possible for the problem at ha[...]


Whether you compare one day with last year value, or one month with the same last year, the same as for temperatures, you see mostly natural variability, and in no way a trend, even less a climate trend. So you could as well look at 1 day for that matters ... you would have more noise probably, but neither a comparison of monthly or daily average will tell you much about the climate trend.

quote:
Monthly data isn't useless obviously, but annual data *is* more relevant. But the notion that a single day's results are somehow more valuable and indicative than an average for an entire month is, of course, severely flawed.


What is severely flawed is your comprehension of the issue. Monthly data are relevant for a trend, it's just comparing monthly average over 2 years that does not make much sense.

Averaging the data over 1 year for one hemisphere, you mix up two phenomenon (melting and freezing). That has its usefulness but you can as well focus one of the two processes by looking at monthly averages (particularly if you want to assess possible changes in the length of the melting/freezing seasons), or seasonal averages.

If you want to learn about what to do with monthly averages in terms of trend from people who know what they're talking about, take a look at that:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20080904_...

Now focus on the last two points, showing sea ice extent larger in August 2008 than in August 2007 .... that tells you a lot about the trend, right? Yep, despite the 'gain', it's under what the trend would lead to ...

There's even some text if a simple time series is too complicated for you to analyze:

Even though August ice extent was above that of August 2007, the downward trend for August ice loss has now gone from -8.4% per decade to -8.7% per decade.

That's without mentioning that sea extent doesn't tell much about ice loss ...


By jgvandemeer on 9/5/2008 1:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you want to learn about what to do with monthly averages in terms of trend
Everything you said is a lot of doubletalk trying to hide these two facts.

#1 There's more ice up there than there was last year.
#2 It's colder up there than it was last year.


By jbartabas on 9/5/2008 1:45:43 PM , Rating: 2
Look at Masher words and you'll notice he's paid a great deal of attention to mention the words coverage or extent as often as possible. You haven't

quote:
#1 There's more ice up there than there was last year.


because the discussion is already beyond your comprehension capabilities. It's not about more or less ice, it's about more or less ice extent or coverage ... I know it will be still obscure for you but who cares ...

quote:
#2 It's colder up there than it was last year.


Yep, it has been colder, as about every other year for the last 150 years has been colder than the previous year. What does it say about the trend? not much ... do you even understand the word?

Again, even if words are two complicated, look at that figure
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20080904_...

Now try to count the number of points which are higher than the previous one ... now you conclude yourself about what does it mean in terms of trend to compare just two points 1 year apart (a simplified illustration of what could be a trend is illustrated by the blue line ... it can actually be more complicated, but we've obviously reached a limit of complexity for you).


By jgvandemeer on 9/5/2008 2:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, even if words are two complicated
Well, I know enough about words to tell the difference between "two" and too".


By jbartabas on 9/5/2008 2:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, I know enough about words to tell the difference between "two" and too".


I really thank you for educating me, because I didn't even know that there were too ... oops two (... or is it too) different spellings for this word, and that they meant twwoo different things. Two bad that your comprehension doesn't go further than that ... Did you figure out the meaning of trend or a difference between to-woo values is the best you can do?


By Andy35W on 9/6/2008 1:17:37 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
#1 There's more ice up there than there was last year


True, but since the start of September the extent has decreased by 143 000 km^2 with another 50 000+ disappearing yesterday. We'll have to wait to the end of September to actually see what the minima is. Comparing values in 2007 and 2008 without looking at the minima is pointless when talking about extent, no matter which month inbetween you wish to pick. Same for maxima.

Regards

Andy


By ipay on 9/10/2008 11:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
Here's the official communication: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080826_secondlowest....

Asher is a bare-faced liar or just massively deluded. Either way, he's not worth listening to.


By skroh on 9/12/2008 1:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
This behavior on the part of major media outlets is in perfect keeping with the old saw about GW skeptics not understanding the difference between climate and weather.

Based on the general attitude of GW proponents, I have been able to learn the true definition:

-Any phenomenon that appears to support anthropogenic climate change=climate.

-Any phenomenon that casts doubt on anthropogenic climate change=weather.


By MatthiasF on 9/3/2008 4:55:10 PM , Rating: 4
Read the article. It states 10 times more ice loss on the island in question, not the entire Arctic.

quote:
Including the Markham loss, Ellesmere Island has now lost 10 times more shelf ice this summer than scientists predicted on July 30.


By Motoman on 9/3/2008 4:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
...which is why I think it's much more appropriate to use the term "climate change" - while in general the average temperature is going to creep up slightly, on a localized basis it may or may not actually get hotter...

I think people need to stop pointing fingers at individual data points and actually look at the entirety of what's going on.


By Alexvrb on 9/3/2008 8:12:00 PM , Rating: 2
Right, right, climate change, of course! Couldn't get global warming scare to pan out, so now we're using a concept that can never be wrong, explains all changes in weather and temperature, and requires no facts to back it up! Why didn't we push this idea sooner?!


By Motoman on 9/5/2008 4:58:24 PM , Rating: 2
...Global warming is "panning out." It's completely undeniable that, on average, the temperature of the Earth is increasing. However, stupid people hear "global warming" and percieve it to mean that temperatures must be going up *everywhere*, which is not the case. Then, said stupid people declare that "global warming" is just a "scare tactic" and that it isn't "panning out."

...but since we're all geniuses here, naturally there's no need to point out the obvious...


By Topweasel on 9/3/2008 5:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
Expect vs. Actual loss.

What happened is that cooling, perhaps caused by loss of sunspot activity, resulted in slightly less loss and due to lack of foresight into snow drifts not happening, resulted in less insulation of the ice from the cold air caused actually a drop in Ice loss.

They expected increased temps (even though its been two years since an increase)+ loss of mass = equal exponential increase in loss of ice.

Keep in mind the ice caps have been melting for 20k years. The science of it is right, same temp lower mass easier to melt. Outside factors the same as long as we don't have a full blown ice age, expecting ice to melt quicker isn't rocket science, but considering that it isn't it basically throws just about everything else out. Though one wrench is if it is actually worse on the other hemisphere.

Take all of this into consideration, still doesn't tell us of anything worth knowing in terms of whether its a man made issue (if there is one) or not. Its been proven time and again that there has been many periods in history where temps where below what they are now with higher ammounts of CO2. Not only that but you think that a higher CO2 count would look better anyways in regards to plant life (and therefore cleaner and more abundant oxygen for us).


yep
By kjboughton on 9/3/2008 2:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yet more evidence that man is not the keeper of global climate patterns. I fully expect that all the raving "Global Warming" nuts, that coincidentally have no idea what they are talking about, plan to have a sit in and officially refute more scientific evidence that shows just how horribly impressionable they really are.




RE: yep
By sgw2n5 on 9/3/2008 3:39:23 PM , Rating: 1
So the metric ass ton of previously inaccessible and sequestered (out of the carbon cycle) CO2 that we release into the atmosphere has absolutely no effect on climate?? None at all?

Please enlighten me as to how this is possible.

/not a "Global Warming Nut" btw, but long term research by credible scientists is imperative to understanding what humanity can do to improve the conditions in which we live, or at the very least, maintain livable conditions.


RE: yep
By Jim28 on 9/3/2008 4:12:38 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe you should learn percentage of man-released C02 is of the atmosphere as a whole?


RE: yep
By sgw2n5 on 9/3/2008 4:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
So what % of the CO2 is man made then?


RE: yep
By CyborgTMT on 9/3/2008 7:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
Roughly .002% to .005% depending on who's data you read.


RE: yep
By Bickers on 9/3/2008 5:07:55 PM , Rating: 5
The % of CO2 in the atmosphere is very small - less then 0.1%

The amount of CO2 released by mankind each year is circa 3%.

Water vapour is mainly responsible for the greenhouse

The very small impact that CO2 can have on warming is logrithmic and most of that has already happened so future increases on CO2 are likely to be irrelevant to warming. The positive feedback claims aren't happening; looks like it's negative feedback - problem/scare over

CO2 is vital to all life on our planet - without it we're dead - so it not a poisonous gas as some AGW nutters would have us believe. Research has shown that the planet has become greener since increases in CO2 have occurred.

Industrial growers often pump CO2 into their greenhouses to improve growth & crop yields - why's that then?

A warm/warmer world is more preferable to a colder one - just look at how people move to warmer climates for holidays and to live when they're economically able to

More people die from 'cold' deaths that 'warm' deaths

Following the mantra of the AGW alarmists resulted in the disaster that was/is biofuels: people have been starving because of food shortages as farmland has been converted to growing subsidised biofuels which very often produce more CO2 than they're supposed to save - well done environmentalists!!

The IPCC was specifically set up to show that warming is caused by mankind - sound familiar - dodgy dossier: Saddam has WMD so just show he has - remember the experts told us he had them - and.........

The computer models have been very poor at predicting the weather and climate - they didn't predict the stalling of the warming or the recent global cooling so why believe their claims a 100 years out.

Academics and other institutions have a vested interest in keeping the climate scare going as it brings in the grants and media attention

The media sucks - they're not interested in the truth just scare stories - its sells: Sars, Y2K, AIDs, Bird Flu & WMD - all major disasters waiting to consume us - what happened - very little!

Lots of jobs have been created by the warming hoax - no one wnats to say it all been a waste of time, make themselves redundant or have to explain why billions have been wasted on useless policies.

Most AGW alarmists have painted themselves into a corner - and now the hoax is unravelling - Emperors new clothes anyone?

Let's focus our resources and energies on solving real global problems: poverty, disease, economic unfairness, illiteracy and political subjegation - that's what the UN should be doing not selling a pig in a poke!



RE: yep
By juserbogus on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: yep
By Bickers on 9/4/2008 1:08:39 PM , Rating: 1
I know what forcing is - the computer models predicted it but it's not turn up in the REAL World

I suggest you show evidence (and not based on spurious computer models) that shows that CO2 has caused any historical warming


RE: yep
By cocoman on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: yep
By porkpie on 9/3/2008 11:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
Wow such a long post and yet you still managed to get every single thing wrong.
quote:
CO2 is not vital to all life. It is vital for plants that use it
If there isn't enough CO2 in the air, we all starve to death. Like that better?

Anyway, some CO2 IS required for humans. Turns out if there's none at all, you don't breathe.
quote:
the excess of CO2 is toxic to other forms of living.
So is O2 and water. Guess that means we should ban those too huh?

quote:
That means cities destroyed by a raise in sea level
Huh? The current prediction is for a sea rise of about 1/3 of a foot. That's enough to flood your ankles. If you're already standing on the edge of the water.
quote:
Of course biofuels always will produce more CO2 than they are supposed to save. You are burning it... you just produce less CO2 than fosil fuels
Nope. You produce MORE CO2 than you would had you just burned the fossil fuels in the first place. And you make food prices shoot through the roof in the process.
quote:
Now whose experts were talking about the WMD? US military experts (inteligence).
And the Germans. And the British. And a few other intelligence agencies.
quote:
Even if global warming is not true, we are moving into a cleaner industrie
So its ok to lie long as we think its in a good cause?
quote:
The UN anounced a few years back that the had to decrease the amount of food they sent to Africa because they couldn't afford it anymore
With all major nations wasting billions on carbon reduction projects and burning all our food in our cars, its no wonder.
quote:
I just think that if so many scientist say there is a problem, there probably is one.
30 years ago, so many scientists were saying we were facing another ice age. What's that saying about fool me once, shame on you?


RE: yep
By carroll on 9/4/08, Rating: 0
RE: yep
By atrabilious on 9/4/2008 9:57:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
who said anything about 'banning' CO2?
Al Gore, and a few thousand other politicians.


RE: yep
By Bickers on 9/4/2008 1:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
Have we forgotten about the Enlightenment - a time when man started to question and doubt everything and used science to start better understand how the life and worls worked.

Unfortunately cimate science has been hijacked by socialists, politicians and a left leaning media (BBC)


RE: yep
By Ringold on 9/5/2008 1:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
Over at Ars, in the comments part of a recent article on mass extinctions recently, the liberals were out in force actually denouncing the Enlightenment as being a net negative for the world. Human liberties, as we once defined them, such as self-determination and whatnot are to them outmoded concepts incompatible with the survival of.. frogs, I guess.

It was actually pretty scary once I considered that if so many such extremists can show up at Ars, that means that as representative sample of a much larger population, there must be tens of thousands of such fascists/marxists/whatever out there in the country. Maybe hundreds of thousands, or even millions. And those people.. vote.

I can't help but wonder if its an "intellectual" and social trend limited to the US or the Western world, and if the trend will fizzle out or gain momentum. If it gains momentum, then they are signaling an era where humans, instead of seeking knowledge and behaving as individuals, live instead only to serve the greater collective, where a Soviet-style central planning committee directs the lives of the masses. The Enlightenment down the drain entirely.


RE: yep
By carroll on 9/5/2008 3:08:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can't help but wonder if its an "intellectual" and social trend limited to the US or the Western world, and if the trend will fizzle out or gain momentum. If it gains momentum, then they are signaling an era where humans, instead of seeking knowledge and behaving as individuals, live instead only to serve the greater collective, where a Soviet-style central planning committee directs the lives of the masses. The Enlightenment down the drain entirely.


i certainly can see that happen, to some extent. look at china (old hat, i know) - their way of running a country, however frightening it is to us 'free' people, seems to work exceptionally well on a purely economic and political basis.


RE: yep
By carroll on 9/5/2008 3:01:36 AM , Rating: 2
i don't place much concern in what mass media and/or politicians say, especially concerning such matters as those dicussed here. there's no scientific or similar education/reasoning/understanding there and they'll just pick up what fits best. ask those people what nano in powers of ten is or similar questions and you will see how far they can delve into such material ... it's not nice and one can certainly get mad at how much influence there is.

as to al gore - while i would support his cause, i don't like his line of 'reasoning' at all. i'd rather be confronted with 'hard evidence' than semi-populist and dramatically made-up 'documentaries' or whatever it's called. there doesn't seem to be another way to reach certain people, however.


The artic summer has ended? Really?
By psonice on 9/3/2008 5:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
Everything else I've seen seems to say this:

- There's more ice coverage than this time last year. Just.
- It's colder in the arctic than last year.
- The ice is melting faster than last year.
- The melting season ISN'T FINISHED FOR A FEW MORE WEEKS.
- The melt could result in there being LESS ice than last year before the season is done.

Is the author calling a premature end to summer here so the statistics fit the agenda?




RE: The artic summer has ended? Really?
By masher2 (blog) on 9/3/2008 5:58:20 PM , Rating: 3
> "The melt could result in there being LESS ice than last year before the season is done"

It's possible. However, ice growth usually begins the second half of this month, and with a deficit of 700,000 sq. km to make up, that seems very unlikely.

Certainly my figures are much less premature than those who, three months earlier, were predicting ice melt would set a new record.


By The Night Owl on 9/4/2008 8:58:38 AM , Rating: 1
"Certainly my figures are much less premature than those who, three months earlier, were predicting ice melt would set a new record."

Less premature but premature nonetheless. Clearly, your goal as a writer is not to report facts but to counter bad reporting with more bad reporting.


By pliny on 9/4/2008 9:22:26 AM , Rating: 2
Here's what your source, the NSIDC, said on 26 August: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
quote:
Sea ice extent has fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. Will 2008 also break the standing record low, set in 2007? We will know in the next several weeks, when the melt season comes to a close. The bottom line, however, is that the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent characterizing the past decade continues.

I don't think they think the melt season is over. And according to the latest figures, the difference from 2007 is gown to 1 Germany.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3463#comment-294351


By foolsgambit11 on 9/4/2008 2:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
As of Aug. 26, the deficit was only 430,000 sq.km. to make up. I agree, it probably won't make it, despite the fact that the ice is melting faster (possibly because it's thinner than last year? I don't know for sure). We'll see. Considering it made up 270k sq.km. in 3 weeks, if the melt only goes on for 3 more weeks (from Aug. 26), we could see it only missing by 160,000 sq.km. in the end - if it continued to catch up at the same rate (an assumption I'm sure I'm pulling out of my fourth point of contact) - a final difference of less than 4%.

In the end, we'll know in a month how things fall out, and we won't know before that.


By KarmakazeNZ on 9/4/2008 8:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
Mr Asher, either you are a liar or a fool.

"Arctic sea ice extent on August 26 was 5.26 million square kilometers (2.03 million square miles), a decline of 2.06 million square kilometers (795,000 square miles) since the beginning of the month. Extent is now within 430,000 square kilometers (166,000 square miles) of last year's value on the same date and is 1.97 million square kilometers (760,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/082608.html

"Arctic sea ice extent on September 3 was 4.85 million square kilometers (1.87 million square miles), a decline of 2.47 million square kilometers (950,000 square miles) since the beginning of August.

Extent is now within 370,000 square kilometers (140,000 square miles) of last year’s value on the same date and is 2.08 million square kilometers (800,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

What do you have to say about that, Mr Asher?


By realitybytes on 9/5/2008 2:29:56 AM , Rating: 2
Err, by using the *average* 'deficit' for the month of August rather than the real end-of-month deficit of approx half that, you're overtly decreasing your accuracy needlessly (by ignoring how much of that same deficit was already been eliminated by the end of the month).

By looking at the chart, it seems quite clear that melting is still occurring at a pretty good clip - certainly a lot more than last year at this time - and so there is a very real chance (actually, a pretty good likelihood) that *all* of the 'deficit' will be made up by the end of the melting... We'll find out in about 3 weeks!

And, as I recall, based upon a polling of many different opinions, 41% said there would *not* be a new record, while 59% said there would be a new record minimum. And very few were *predicting* a new record minimum, they were just giving there estimate of the chance of a new minimum.

And it appears that there is a pretty good chance that the 59% are right!


Not wishing to spoil the party but...........
By kilkennycat on 9/3/2008 9:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
Please read today's AP article entitled:-

"Huge ice sheet breaks loose in Canadian arctic"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26529937/

Seems as if a few short-term inches of new ice-cover do not compensate for persistent effects of climate change that are irreversible in the short-term. And the eco-systems that depend on large thick ice-sheets for their survival permanently lose out.




By atrabilious on 9/3/2008 11:24:13 PM , Rating: 2
What "eco systems"? The last I heard, the polar bears were doing fine. Anything else up there can swim.


By atrabilious on 9/4/2008 9:59:04 AM , Rating: 2
Guess you didn't feel like defending that. Not surprising.


By omnicronx on 9/4/2008 11:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The last I heard, the polar bears were doing fine

Just about the only provable thing when it comes to what is happening in the artic.. Polar bears have been officially declared endangered as of last year. Moral of the story, you heard wrong..


By atrabilious on 9/4/2008 11:44:04 AM , Rating: 2
Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice:
quote:
According to the February 7, 2005 Edinburgh Scotsman ( http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?... "The world's polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming.

"According to new research," the Scotsman reports, "the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade.

"We're seeing an increase in bears that's really unprecedented, and in places where we're seeing a decrease in the population it's from hunting, not from climate change," Canadian polar bear expert Mitch Taylor told the Scotsman.

The March 9, 2007 London Telegraph confirmed the ongoing polar bear population explosion ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne... "A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining," the Telegraph reports.

"In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today," added the Telegraph.


This article is just plain wrong.
By failureman on 9/6/2008 10:56:50 AM , Rating: 2
The current data from the NSIDC shows only 4.5million sq KM of arctic ice today, not 6 million as reported above. The article is essentially a lie. The data is wrong.

http://www.nsidc.com/data/seaice_index/images/dail...




RE: This article is just plain wrong.
By nsnmeek on 9/6/2008 12:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
he current data from the NSIDC shows only 4.5million sq KM of arctic ice today

Are you really this stupid? Read the article again, and see if you can figure out your own mistake. Hint: I highlighted a lead to get you started. If you fail that test, try reading the comments here for a spoiler.


RE: This article is just plain wrong.
By Andy35W on 9/6/2008 2:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Are you really this stupid? Read the article again, and see if you can figure out your own mistake. Hint: I highlighted a lead to get you started. If you fail that test, try reading the comments here for a spoiler.


That's pretty feeble to be honest as a defence.

Why not put up a few figures to give it some backbone?

Masher quotes

"Data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has indicated a dramatic increase in sea ice extent in the Arctic regions. The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany. "

Yet over the past year NSIDC quote, from their front page 4th September update

"Extent is now within 370,000 square kilometers (140,000 square miles) of last year’s value on the same date and is 2.08 million square kilometers (800,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average"

whereas Michael Asher quotes

"The growth over the past year covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers"

So him cutting the finishing tape early meant his has stateed twice as much as the actual figure now.

To quote NSIDC again

"Following a record rate of ice loss through the month of August, Arctic sea ice extent already stands as the second-lowest on record, further reinforcing conclusions that the Arctic sea ice cover is in a long-term state of decline. With approximately two weeks left in the melt season, the possibility of setting a new record annual minimum in September remains open"

and

"In a typical year, the daily rate of ice loss starts to slow in August as the Arctic begins to cool. By contrast, in August 2008, the daily decline rate remained steadily downward and strong"

and

"The average daily ice loss rate for August 2008 was 78,000 square kilometers per day (30,000 square miles per day). This is the fastest rate of daily ice loss that scientists have ever observed during a single August. Losses were 15,000 square kilometers per day (5,800 square miles per day) faster than in August 2007, and 27,000 square kilometers per day (10,000 square miles per day) faster than average."

source -> http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

So Michael stopping this years race early can be seen to be, at the very least, premature.

He does however have some valid points in his original article about ice thickness and temps.

Fogetting ice extent for the moment and looking at the more significant ice area we have

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/cur...

Almpst the same as 2007.

And if you look at the total amount of ice lost this year from yesterday we have 2008 being MORE than 2007

http://img231.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dropfromp...

So yes, I look forward to you figures to proves otherwise.

Regards

Andy


RE: This article is just plain wrong.
By nsnmeek on 9/6/2008 4:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't normally argue with people that obviously can't understand. All your questions have already been answered over and over ad nauseam. Try reading the comments.

What you say doesn't even relate to the OPs post. He said the article was lying because he can't see the difference between a monthly average and a daily number (even when the day comes after the article was published). Did this guy fall off the short bus?

quote:
Fogetting ice extent for the moment and looking at the more significant ice area
Ice area is not more significant. Extent is the total area covered, and is what controls the amount of sunlight reflected. That determines feedback effects for future cooling or warming.

Ice area is just extent x thickness. It's a valuable predictor for future ice growth rates, but its not at all more important than extent. If you have two blocks of ice of the same area, but one has twice the extent, it will be much more effective at controlling future temps.

I have to go back to real work now, so I won't reply again. If you still don't understand, just try reading slowly. Maybe take off your shoes so you can count higher.


By Andy35W on 9/6/2008 4:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ice area is just extent x thickness


No, that's volume. It's a good job you don't argue given that example.

Ice area is extent with a subtractiion for the regions of open water within that extent.

Regards

Andy


interesting
By underqualified on 9/4/2008 1:09:52 AM , Rating: 2
It's amazing how far this thing has gone but please allow me to ask a quick question.

Why didn't anyone mention that the pink line in that picture represents the extent of average arctic ice sheet coverage?

The NSDIC who was used as a source uses these daily ice sheet pictures to show the average LOSS we are currently experiencing in ice sheet coverage. Just thought that the reasoning of those who created the picture should get some actual credit. Oh wait that's the responsibility of a true journalist not some self absorbed blogger merely attempting to create their own facts from other's work. I'm sorry I thought objective journalism was the idea. I'll get out of the way so you can line up the rest of your sheep.




RE: interesting
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2008 2:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
> "the pink line in that picture represents the extent of average arctic ice sheet coverage?"

It does not. It represents the mean over the period 1979-2007 only.

The average coverage taken over the last million years is a value far smaller than what we currently have. Permanent ice caps are a rarity in the earth's history; they exist only about 10% of the time, during brief periods during the interglacials.

Barring some unforseen event, the Arctic will most assuredly continue the melting which began at the end of the last ice age and will be entirely gone at some point in the relatively near future -- with or without mankind. The purpose of this story is to highlight the fact that, when compared to last year, the amount of ice has recovered substantially.


RE: interesting
By underqualified on 9/4/2008 4:58:09 PM , Rating: 2
"It does not. It represents the mean over the period 1979-2007 only."

Ok you know what you're right. I wont argue that one. Could you instead tell everyone what the actual average coverage is for the last million years? I know it's difficult since the data only began to be collected starting in, and this one's a shocker, 1979! The coincidence is crazy I know. So tell me about the last million years in a battle of semantics. Obviously if the last million years are so important, the fact that there was recovery in the last 1 year becomes wholly irrelevant. Since you say this is the entire point of your story, I am sure you considered that before replying.


RE: interesting
By underqualified on 9/5/2008 6:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
Stop hiding out! I'm not goin anywhere!!! :):):) Defend yourself LOL If you think you can :X HA! rotfl :-D


Wow
By Shuxclams on 9/3/2008 6:42:44 PM , Rating: 4
Seriously?!?!? In just the past 24 hours there have been multiple articles on how the Ice Shelves have diminished greatly this past summer.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/09/02/scie...

http://news.yahoo.com/story//afp/20080903/sc_afp/c...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7595441....

I am not interested in name calling at this point... it isn't needed anymore, just keep posting.




RE: Wow
By jgvandemeer on 9/3/2008 7:52:09 PM , Rating: 3
I read the first of your links and I don't see any discrepancy. Looks like this site chose to report on the entire Arctic, and the other sites chose to focus on just the part which was melting faster (Northern Canada).

Understandable I guess, bad news sells better than good.


BTW
By kjboughton on 9/3/2008 2:58:15 PM , Rating: 3
BTW, claiming the world will end unless you pay money is a great way to convince people they need to give you money. It's really just more of one of the most classic scams of all time.




RE: BTW
By elpresidente2075 on 9/3/2008 6:24:35 PM , Rating: 2
Just like telling people they'll go to hell unless they buy a certain product from your institution, and continue to do so on a regular basis.


year to year comparisons are useless
By eyebeeemmpawn on 9/3/2008 4:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
year to year comparisons are useless when considering climate change on a global scale.




By The Night Owl on 9/3/2008 5:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well, year to year comparisons are not totally useless. After all, they make for sensational headlines which win DT a lot of traffic from sites like Drudge Report.


An Honest Question
By tigerspot on 9/3/2008 4:40:53 PM , Rating: 2
This GW 'debate' seems harshly pitched from both sides.

I have an honest question, not tied to either side, just a practical question.

If we believe human activity is causing global warming (and I do believe it personally), what confidence do we have that CO2 is a major driver of the trend?

I ask because, as a practicing engineer with some good experience with NOx, various HC compounds, and other combustion byproducts, I cannot help but note CO2 is a boring, unreactive compound. Unlike some others that 'do' lots of things to the atmosphere, (most of them very bad) CO2 seems relatively benign.

I would be happy for any articles on the topic.

Please don't scream at me! I come in peace!

Tiger Spot




RE: An Honest Question
By sgw2n5 on 9/3/2008 5:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
CO2 is relatively benign chemically, you are absolutely correct.

The problem with CO2 is that absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µM). While these bands are but a tiny fraction of the EM spectrum, energy is absorbed.

Various NOx gasses, and even H20 absorb much more energy in a wider variety of bands than CO2, and I think that they contribute more to climate change than CO2, but CO2 is being labeled as the culprit.


More inaccurate statements from Asher
By Andy35W on 9/4/2008 5:49:56 AM , Rating: 2
Firstly the image used, that is not the current state of play, this is better

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?...

you just cherry picked an old image.

Then this

"With the Arctic melting season over for 2008"

No it's not, there is at least another 2 weeks and with the thinner ice and lower concentrations this year it may extend longer. Indeed, since writing this piece there has been 100 000km^2 lost. So much for the melt season being over.

Currently 2007 has lost more ice extent than 2008 and it reamins to be seen what the final total will be.

Regards

Andy




By Andy35W on 9/4/2008 6:00:38 AM , Rating: 2
for "and it reamins to be seen" put in "but it remains to be seen".

Michael Asher can at least be grammatically correct even if what he writes is sometimes not technically!

Unlike mine ... :)

Regards

Andy



Canada.com opposes this story.
By plattapuss on 9/5/2008 9:06:11 AM , Rating: 2
Interestingly enough, today Canada.com came out with a story on the same topic, but seemingly with a completely opposite conclusion.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.h...




By Andy35W on 9/5/2008 9:43:05 AM , Rating: 2
They are correct, loss for August was 2.14 million km^2 in 2008 against 1.71 million in 2007.

2007 had an early charge and 2008 is having a somewhat later, if reduced, charge due mainly to younger ice and warm SW winds from Siberia.

Regards

Andy


wordlplay and error
By barry schwarz on 9/6/2008 12:33:41 PM , Rating: 2
The article above is rhetorically tricky and error-prone. Misleading language is in the title...

Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage

and reflected in the body of the article.

The growth over the past year

Arctic sea ice has been melting since March 10.

covers an area of 700,000 square kilometers: an amount twice the size the nation of Germany.

To give some perspective, that much ice has been lost in three days over numerous melt seasons.

Seeing as Arctic sea ice has been in decline for the last 5 months, it is curious to see recent extent described as 'growth'.

During a fairly cold Arctic winter, the averaged monthly maximum sea ice extent for 2008 was in March - 500 000 sq kms greater than the previous maximum in 2007, also in March. The comparative post-March melt rates are quite different. In June 2008, sea ice extent was very close to June 2007. The gap widened again in July and closed again in august. The latest data (September 3) still shows more sea ice extent than the same date last year, and the difference is 370 000 sq kms.

With the Arctic melting season over for 2008, ice cover will continue to increase

This is flat out wrong (as the author acknowledges in the comments - but has not corrected in the article). The melting season did not end in August, nor did it end at the time the article above was posted, nor has it ended at the time of this post (Sep 6). There is still roughly 10 to 14 days of melt left. Melt season usually finishes in the week after September 15.

John Mashey's post is premature and poorly worded.

William Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Research Center at the University of Illinois, tells DailyTech that this year the Arctic was "definitely colder" than 2007.

That's the simple truth.

I've been following the melt over the past few months. You can get daily updates from the source of this article here;

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html

where you can click on the following link to get a good, almost real-time comparison with last year's sea sea ice as well as with the 1979 to 2000 mean.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...

You can see for yourself that the metl has continued, and get an indication from eyeballing the graph on how long it may continue.

It is interesting to note that although 2008 is turning out to be a cold year (will probably compare to 2002 at most, or 1999/2000 at least), sea ice extent is already lower than the absolute minimum for 2005, which was the record minimum previous to 2007, despite 2005 being one of the top two warmest years on record. The lack of uniformity between global temps and sea ice extent is a result of local weather conditions. Bi-annual fluctuations tell us little about climate trends.




RE: wordlplay and error
By barry schwarz on 9/7/2008 12:04:24 AM , Rating: 2
Correction to something I wrote in the post above (ignoring typos).

To give some perspective, that much ice has been lost in three days over numerous melt seasons.

That should read... "that much has has been lost in 6 days over numerous melt seasons". That is, sea ice extent of 700 000 sq kms has been lost in under a week from time to time during melt seasons. This year saw a few days where melt was 200 000 sq kms per day.


@psonice
By Dodgy Geezer on 9/7/2008 7:21:59 AM , Rating: 2
Congratulations to PSONICE for a reasonable and balanced statement of the actual data:

"- There's more ice coverage than this time last year. Just.
- It's colder in the arctic than last year.
- The ice is melting faster than last year.
- The melting season ISN'T FINISHED FOR A FEW MORE WEEKS.
- The melt could result in there being LESS ice than last year before the season is done."

In the interests of pointing out the propaganda scores, I would like to add:

- AVERAGE ice this year is greater, but the minimum ice extent (MIE) this year seems very similar to last, and may bottom out slightly below.
- I feel that 2008 is essentially similar to 2007, so both sides may claim a draw.
- it was claimed that the MIE this year would be much WORSE than last
- the recent MIEs are lower than the 79-2000 average because this includes a particularly cold period.

All in all, this data suggests that things are not getting warmer, or cooler. We have essentially had a flat period since 2001. This does not fit with Global Warming.




RE: @psonice
By Andy35W on 9/8/2008 1:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
- the recent MIEs are lower than the 79-2000 average because this includes a particularly cold period.

All in all, this data suggests that things are not getting warmer, or cooler. We have essentially had a flat period since 2001. This does not fit with Global Warming.


The minima has been going down since 1970 and your cold spike, which you think has happened earlier to put averages up, has had no effect at all on minima since 1970

Check out the green line

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea...

The trend is down for the minima since the 1950's and your cold period has no result on the general trend at all? Where is it?

Regards

Andy

PS The melt season, that is apparently over, lost 64 000km yesterday, which is the biggest one day loss in September for the last few years. 2008 has seen September already lose 200 000Km^2, well on the way to half the value Masher quotes as it being behind in August.

http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/4104/iceextentd...
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/4755/dropfrompe...

Regards

Andy


Ice loss
By neilg on 9/8/2008 6:35:21 AM , Rating: 2
It is unfortunate that you used incomplete data to distort the actual ice melt for 2008.

"It's now a "neck-and-neck race between 2007 and this year over the issue of ice loss," Mark Serreze, a senior climate researcher at NSIDC said, quoted Canwest News Service.

Researchers will know in the next several weeks, once the peak of the melting season passes, whether 2008 will break the record, NSIDC said in a statement."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science/july-d...

It is difficult to take your comments seriously when you seem to have deliberately used incomplete and partial data to make your points.




RE: Ice loss
By theendofallsongs on 9/9/2008 10:21:23 PM , Rating: 2
As I understand it, the data used was the monthly end figures for August, averaged over the whole month. It was then compared to the average over the same month from a year earlier. Thats where the gain comes from. It isn't partial or incomplete.

I guess they could have just taken one day and compared it, but an average seems to be a better indicator.


Misreprentation of Data intentional?
By AnnoyedGrunt on 9/4/2008 4:08:29 AM , Rating: 1
Interesting discussion. One things I find a little disingeneous about the article is the title and the overall impression the article leaves, which is clearly in opposition to the opinion of those who catalogued the data.

According to the source, "Through the beginning of the melt season in May until early August, daily ice extent for 2008 closely tracked the values for 2005. In early August of 2005, the decline began to slow; in August of 2008, the decline has remained steadily downward at a brisk pace. The 2005 minimum of 5.32 million square kilometers (2.05 million square miles) occurred on September 21"

It should be noted that 2007 had the lowest quantity of ice, and 2005 the second lowest. They are comparing 2008 to 2005 and judging whether 08 will become the new "second place".

They also state, "The bottom line, however, is that the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent characterizing the past decade continues."

Here is a link to the data over time, which is interesting because it shows the rate of decay rather than just the specific amount of ice on a specific day. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...

So, I see two issues here. The first is whether GW exists or is something we can (as a society) affect. Certainly there is some debate, and this article does a good job of pointing that out.

More importantly however, we can clearly see that the data was significantly misrepresented, with no mention of the context given by the source on their own site. To me, this article would have been much better if the headline was less sensational and the article was less biased and mentioned the other aspects of the data.

Overall, the poor journalism overshadowed an otherwise interesting article.

-D'oh!




By Reflex on 9/4/2008 5:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for going over the source data, I should have done that from the beginning. This article seemed odd to me in light of the latest data being all over the headlines stating exactly the opposite of this post's headline. Obviously the same data cannot prove contradictory statements.

I have personal doubts about the level of climate change that is truly the result of human activity, I do think that it is perhaps overblown, and especially when people think that 'cars' are the real problem(they aren't even close to the top net producer of CO2). But there is NO doubt among the reputable science community that global warming is occurring, and at a historically fast rate. The degree that humans are contributing to that warming is the real issue here, not whether or not it is happening in the first place, which is more or less settled(as I stated before, I just came from Glacier National Park, you can see the pictures for yourself).

I do not believe in knee-jerk reactions, they typically target the wrong things(like cars, rather than concrete production, for instance) for the wrong reasons. I do not believe serious catastophe is imminent. But at the same time the sooner we come to a consensus and plan of action, the easier that plan will be to implement, so spending our time misleading or deluding ourselves about what is happening only makes it more difficult on future generations. If we wish to preserve our standard of living and not pay huge penalties for change that will be forced upon us regardless, then we need to start making those changes sooner, rather than later.

If we could end the silly misleading debate about "whether" climate change is occurring, and instead focus on what degree of that is the result of human activity, we could start to form a realistic plan of action, including everything from building away from coastlines, to reducing humankinds carbon(and other greenhouse gas) footprint.


This just in...
By 67STANG on 9/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: This just in...
By PitViper007 on 9/3/2008 4:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm I thought he was going Snipe hunting?


By teraflop1 on 9/3/2008 4:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a little worried that people are jumping to conclusions too quickly and resorting to character assassination in lieu of meaningful debate.
I've read someone calling people who believe in global warming 'nuts'. Thatis bad.
The government was caught tampering with scientific information long before the phenomena were understood even at today's level.
Opinions in the scientific community vary as they usually do. It's okay that not all scientist believe one way or the other. As a budding scientist myself I believe there are still too many variables that are not well understood to start going around calling each other nuts.
Here is a recent article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environm...

On the surface it may appear to be a contradiction between one report and another. That's okay as long as scientist are investigating the jury is out.
So don't go getting bent out of shape attacking each other here.
All things being equal, I'm in favor of operating right now as if there is a growing crisis until proven otherwise.
I'm no big fan of extremist views on either side. Fact is, there are dishonest people and with that comes a degree of chaos. There are peer reviewed published scientist with some far out ideas, this is nothing new so just because somebody or group puts out a paper that says we are all about to drown, or have a mile of ice over are heads, or that its all a bunch of tree-hugging tom foolery, you have to take it with a grain of salt.
Science is about what we know or believe we know right now. No scientist worth his creds is going to say what we will know tomorrow.




By The Night Owl on 9/3/2008 5:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
If Arctic sea ice is declining, why does the data show that this year has more ice than previous years?

For details concerning why summer of 2008 is shaping up differently than previous summers, please see our ongoing analysis updates.

A more general question might be, if sea ice is declining, how can it be that a single day or month decades ago could actually have had less ice than the same day or month in recent years? For more accurate results, scientists avoid comparing a historical single day or month (for example, May 1980) with a recent single day or month (for example, May 2008). Comparing longer trends and averages is more appropriate because natural variability, or natural shifts in the climate system, cause changes from one day or month to the next. Scientists remove the influence of this noise in a data record by gathering many points of data over a longer time period to understand the statistical significance of trends. This is true not just in studying sea ice, but also in many areas of scientific study.

As an analogy, consider statistics from sports. One game during a winning season when the home football team lost badly wouldn’t be indicative of their season as a whole. And comparing that one bad game years ago with a really good game this year, when the team managed to win 28-0 during a terrible losing season, wouldn’t be a fair comparison, either. However, plotting all of the games on a line graph would give an accurate indication of how the team did that year. And taking the scores and plotting them over several decades, would indicate whether the team has a significant trend over its history.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html#why_mor...




Progress is non-linear
By 13Gigatons on 9/3/2008 5:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
Global Warming, if real, will ebb and flow. In 20 years people will know whether it was a hype or reality.




Global Cooling
By Tokyonic on 9/3/2008 5:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone panic!!!!

I saw the movie Ice Age, it could happen to us!

sheesh...




wait what?
By shin0bi272 on 9/3/2008 6:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
Believe me I dont trust the global warming alarmists what so ever but 3 links below this story on DailyTech.com is this story http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12831 titled "New Climate Study Indicates Hottest Decade in 1,300 Years"

So someone is full of it here... I tend to believe the people with photographic proof but thats just me.




By BigT383 on 9/3/2008 6:55:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Martin Jeffries of the U.S. National Science Foundation and University of Alaska Fairbanks said in a statement Tuesday that the summer's ice shelf loss (off of a Canadian island) is equivalent to over three times the area of Manhattan, totaling 82 square miles — losses that have reduced (total) Arctic Ocean ice cover to its second-biggest retreat since satellite measurements began 30 years ago .


From: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26529937/




oh man
By tehbiz on 9/3/2008 7:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
whew, luckily everyone abandoned their SUV and gas guzzlers so that in one year global warming was reversed! THE FORCE TELLS ME GORE GETS MORE ACCOLADES

/sarcasm




NSIDC Data
By cghebert on 9/3/2008 10:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
I think one poster has already pointed this out, but if one goes to the NSIDC website and looks to their interpretation of the latest data, they say

"Arctic sea ice now second-lowest on record"

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

They maintain that it has increased somewhat from last year, which was the lowest on record, but that it is important to look at averages at the end of the season, such as their time course here

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_im...

To me, it seems that one can't really draw such conclusions during the year, and it is best to look at historical data, which can give a better idea of what is actually going on. However, it is also easy to manipulate the data somewhat by using only a certain period of time that illustrates your point. NSIDC cites ice data from 1979-2000, it would be interesting to know their full data set, perhaps it is 1979, but I couldn't find anything about it on their site.

This article is a good example of how data can be fit to one's viewpoint. While the author uses the recent data to show that ice is increasing, NSIDC has not made the same conclusion, at least in the long term. In fact, they continue to maintain the opposite.




Funny
By atrabilious on 9/3/2008 11:21:39 PM , Rating: 2
Did anyone read the "related article"? Its from this June and its full of people predicting the entire North Pole was going to melt this summer. Instead, there's only like a bajillion square kilometers left. How wrong can you be?




By Reflex on 9/4/2008 2:20:47 AM , Rating: 2
...in light of this seemingly directly contradictory article up on Ars Technica: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080903-arct...

That article is written by a PhD who has extensively covered this issue. Not to discredit Michael Asher, who's skepticism I have often appreciated on this topic, but the other article is authoritative rather than opinion.

While I have my doubts about anthromorphic causes of global warming, I do not have any doubt that it is occurring, I was at Glacier National Park a month ago, and they have pictures showing the glaciers over the decades of the past 100 years, and at the current rate of decrease none will exist a decade from now. Fairly obvious and provable change there.

BTW, Antarctica has significantly different effects from global warming due to several factors, not the least of which is that if there is an anthromorphic effect it will impact the southern hemisphere significantly less than the northern hemisphere due to the rate of industrialization in the northern hemisphere being much, much greater. The atmosphere does not evenly mix accross the globe, pollutants in the north migrate towards the arctic, while pollutants in the south of the equator migrate towards the antarctic. This, btw, was a major flaw in Al Gore's movie when he implied that Antartic ice cores tell us anything useful about climate change. They do not for the reason mentioned above.




Yes!
By LatinMessiah on 9/4/2008 1:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
Global cooling has begun.




I don't see these numbers...
By realitybytes on 9/4/2008 2:19:22 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but I don't see the same thing at all... You seem to be using the NSIDC site, but it looks like fairly old data, even though it appears you posted it yesterday...

What I see for August 2008, is an extent right at 4.9 million km^2; the same time last year I see about 4.55 million - a difference of only 250,000 km^2. (And for yesterday, the day you posted this, it's even less - 4.67 million vs. 4.47 million)

If you actually posted this about 3 weeks ago, it might match; but I'm puzzled because the time-stamp says Sep 3rd?

In any event, if this data is 3 weeks old, clearly the melt season wasn't over at that time, as stated in the article; it's obviously not over still - take a look at the significant amount of melting occurring over the last 3 days!

In fact, by the time the melt season really and truly ends (probably around Sep 21), it looks like this year's minimum may very well be the lowest measured extent ever, a new record... but even if not, it already is the second lowest right now! (Which makes the post even more puzzling, given that it was stating it is only third or fourth lowest?)

Perhaps I am misinterpreting the post date of this article, but whether I am or not, the conclusions reached clearly are completely wrong!

(Here is the current time series chart:)
http://www.nsidc.com/data/seaice_index/images/dail...
and map:
http://www.nsidc.com/data/seaice_index/images/dail...




By panda on 9/4/2008 4:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
I just wanted to bring it to everyone's attention that the material in this entry is entirely false.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center, on 4 September, indicated that there are at least 2 weeks left in the melt season, and that more sea ice was LOST during August—creating the second-lowest amount on record. There is still potential to even surpass last year's sea ice minimum.
No ice was gained.
check it out at www.nsidc.org




By KarmakazeNZ on 9/4/2008 4:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
September 4, 2008 Record ice loss in August

Following a record rate of ice loss through the month of August, Arctic sea ice extent already stands as the second-lowest on record, further reinforcing conclusions that the Arctic sea ice cover is in a long-term state of decline. With approximately two weeks left in the melt season, the possibility of setting a new record annual minimum in September remains open.

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent on September 3 was 4.85 million square kilometers (1.87 million square miles), a decline of 2.47 million square kilometers (950,000 square miles) since the beginning of August.

Extent is now within 370,000 square kilometers (140,000 square miles) of last year’s value on the same date and is 2.08 million square kilometers (800,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

This article is a blatant (and very stupid seeing as it link to the truth) LIE!




A rebuttal
By KarmakazeNZ on 9/4/2008 8:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Michael Asher over at DailyTech posted Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage on September 3, 2008 and it has already been picked up by Prison Planet. As usual, this article is full of blatant lies that are easily disproved simply by visiting the site linked in the article! It never ceases to amaze me how gullible many people can be, and how they seemingly refuse to even attempt to verify the claims made by people like Michael Asher or Paul Watson.

http://www.notaprisonplanet.com/wordpress/




By Jyrioffinland on 9/5/2008 5:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Following a record rate of ice loss through the month of August, Arctic sea ice extent already stands as the second-lowest on record, further reinforcing conclusions that the Arctic sea ice cover is in a long-term state of decline . With approximately two weeks left in the melt season, the possibility of setting a new record annual minimum in September remains open .




By randomly on 9/5/2008 1:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
You too can take part in the battle against global warming by supporting my Carbon Removal from Anthropoids Project - CRAP.

Please send $20 to the project fund for construction of an underground vault in which to Sequester my wife's cooking for at least 10 times the duration of it's half life. This project will help protect our environment not only from the threat of rampant carbon but from other dangerous environmental threats as well and give our children a chance.

Thank you.




Obstrufication
By Dan Gibson on 9/5/2008 2:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
The author is a little premature on calling the Arctic melt season over. The sea ice extent graph still has a slope indicating that it will intersect the 2007 ice loss in a matter of days and the melt season has a couple of weeks left to go.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/




hello people
By spoerad1 on 9/5/2008 3:24:49 PM , Rating: 2
First of all this whole mess isn't anywhere near sorted out, we can't predict tomorrows weather very acurately let alone any time after that. We simple do not fully understand weather yet, on local or global scale.

Second god help us all when we don't see the bias of an article.




I'm still here :0
By underqualified on 9/5/2008 6:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
Where have you gone? Don't be discouraged. Support your "news"!




By pnkearns on 9/7/2008 11:35:49 AM , Rating: 2
We've only had satellites since the late 70's that can look at Arctic ice. So the ice coverage "low" we're all debating is one with only 30 or so years of history and data.

Meanwhile, we now have NASA admitting that the hottest years in the U.S. were in the 1920's. Meanwhile, we know that Greenland use to be green - Viking days of yore. The chances of low ice/no ice in the Arctic during those years is probably good.

So if the polar bears, and humanity, survived previous years of no Arctic ice, what is the big crisis this time?




By GollyGee on 9/8/2008 11:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
Asher cites the National Snow & Ice Data Center. Their website explains this data clearly at http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/index.html.

Asher writes that the Arctic Sea Ice has dramatically increased. But, according to his source, "Arctic sea ice extent already stands as the second-lowest on record, further reinforcing conclusions that the Arctic sea ice cover is in a long-term state of decline... With approximately two weeks left in the melt season, the possibility of setting a new record annual minimum in September remains open."

Asher's source continues to explain: "Even though August ice extent was above that of August 2007, the downward trend for August ice loss has now gone from -8.4% per decade to -8.7% per decade."

The article then shows a graph indicating that the August figure is the second lowest on record.

So why is Asher trying to convince us that there's been a "Massive Gain in Ice Coverage?"




come on...
By lastobelus on 9/10/2008 6:01:04 AM , Rating: 2
you are looking at the second lowest data point in a series and exclaiming about how it is xx% larger than the lowest datapoint.

Then you are trying to imply somehow that the fact that the second-lowest datapoint is larger than the lowest datapoint means there is no downward trend.

Are you frikn serious? Are you genuinely that obtuse? this years ice extent, though larger than last years (which set a record) is well within the typical deviation from the DOWNWARD trend line. Can you not see that when you look at the graph? ARE YOU ACTUALLY A RATIONAL HUMAN BEING or are you some kind of typing monkey?

The "gain" of this year does not even bring the ice extent back up to the downward trend line!!!! If the downward trend is linear and if ice melt were oscillating uniformly around the trend line, you'd want to see a "gain" compared to last year of more like 18-20%. Instead, this year's data makes it seem like the downward trend may be accelerating.

This August's Y2Y "gain" is less than half the size of the Y2Y gain from '95 to '96. It is in fact only the 7th largest swing up/down in 30 years of data.

It's not like the graph is a scatter plot in which only the kind of pants-wearing-monkey who sees jesus in toast could find a trend. It shows a clear, prominent trend. It's actually difficult to look at and NOT see the imaginary trend line. Man, it takes a whole different kind of monkey altogether to assert there is no downward trend in that graph.




Asher the liar
By ipay on 9/10/2008 11:37:07 AM , Rating: 2
This article is a doozy and really demonstrates the cherry-picking, misrepresentation and outright lies that Asher uses to promote his agenda.

Even the global warming 'sceptics' who normally support him are calling him out in this thread.

Instead of paying attention to a corrupt and scientifically illiterate journalist's misinterpretation and distortion of the data, let's just rely on what the expert source says:

quote:
Sea ice extent has fallen below the 2005 minimum, previously the second-lowest extent recorded since the dawn of the satellite era. We will know if the 2008 record will also fall in the next several weeks, when the melt season comes to a close.

The bottom line, however, is that the strong negative trend in summertime ice extent characterizing the past decade continues.


http://nsidc.org/news/press/20080826_secondlowest....




Media Coverage
By overlandpark4me on 9/12/2008 12:55:33 AM , Rating: 2
This article could say 1000 times more than expected and the global warming nut jobs like that whacko chick on the alarmist , oops "Weather" Channel would not even cover the story because it doesn't line up with what is now a political talking point for the left wing party. Can't come up with anything else (except the race card or course), just twist some "facts" that go way back to the summer of 2005. Want some comedy? Read Gore's Inconvenient "Truth" and how he makes up what he needs to to support his agenda. Nobel Prize. Laughable, but they've been laughing stock for years.




By Gary Right On on 9/13/2008 2:13:25 AM , Rating: 2
So many computer models and so many GW scientific predictions. Just what is the world coming too???

The data is for August 2008 and indicates a total sea ice area of six million square kilometers. Ice extent for the same month in 2007 covered 5.3 million square kilometers, a historic low. Earlier this year, media accounts were rife with predictions that this year would again see a new record. Instead, the Arctic has seen a gain of about thirteen percent.




This article is incorrect
By psychobriggsy on 9/17/2008 2:32:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well the news is out.

The artic's ice melt this year is the second largest ever on record, behind 2007. http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gGvHnpta7a...

There's 10% more sea ice than last year, but it's still less ice than any other year that it was being recorded.




By ddarko on 9/19/2008 1:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
Boy, when science gets in the way, it's easy to distort facts, isn't it? The logic that because this year's ice coverage is ONLY the second lowest level, that therefore, global warming must be a myth is laughable. Pesky things such as context, which demonstrates that ice coverage has dropped from a 30-year average, is not even mentioned because such historical context messes up the "no global warming" ideology. The fact that the Artic sea is approaching the point of being ice-free during the summer - which hasn't occurred in 16 MILLION years - is also curiously not mentioned. You want to see some facts presented truthfully and honestly and not selectively designed to fit the anti-climate change ideology? Check out this piece in the Sydney Herald from today, which qotes a U.S. Army scientist about ice summer. We all know the U.S. Army is FILLED with pinkos and radical environmentalists, right?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/scientists-...




LIAR ! FALSE DATA!
By 911allo911allo on 9/17/2008 8:28:45 AM , Rating: 1
Compare the inage shown here (a freaking lie) to the one from National Snow and Ice Data Center :

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/n_conc_daily.ht...

Note that it is a scale of concentration, blue = 0% of ice and white 100%.

But even NSDIC tries to hide the reality, beware about the graphics they show you are scalled to show more ice with a "small" lie : they show surface area containing "more then 15% of ice".

Look at the picture which they can not lie : the northern passages, both in Canadian waters and in Russian waters are TOTALLY ice free! This is the first time ever and Zionist medias censure facts before elections in Canada and in the USA.

ENvironment Canada says that they won't be ANY ICE left in the annual minimum of Mid Sept very soon. They say probablye 2009, maybe 2008 and certainly no later then 2010.

The information presented here is TOTALLY FALSE. I am shocked to see how the authors have the nerves to publish such an obvious lie!

DailyTECH "science" ? BULLSHIT.

Michel Lauzon, electronic engineer
expert at reverse engineering of politics and undercover




I'm so confused
By Cobra Commander on 9/3/08, Rating: 0
writers
By shuffle2 on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: writers
By rawlic on 9/3/2008 2:52:30 PM , Rating: 5
I think its worse that something like this will only see one or two articles and no coverage in the MSM because it doesn't fit with the whole "global warming is going to kill us all," theme.


RE: writers
By Sandok on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: writers
By PhreakyMike on 9/3/2008 2:58:10 PM , Rating: 3
That's why they're trying to hard to move us to mars :D


RE: writers
By BladeVenom on 9/3/2008 7:06:52 PM , Rating: 4
Mars has gotten warmer also.


RE: writers
By 16nm on 9/3/2008 7:51:53 PM , Rating: 3
Has anyone noticed that the percent increase of ice coverage is proportionate to the increase of Prius vehicles? The Prius has saved the Queen!


RE: writers
By erikejw on 9/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: writers
By GPig on 9/4/2008 3:08:05 AM , Rating: 4
God damn those filthy rovers, spewing emissions into the martian atmosphere...


RE: writers
By Samus on 9/4/2008 5:25:39 AM , Rating: 2
I think it has more to do with the sun slowly increasing in temperature over billions of years, until it burns out and gets supernova on our asses :P


RE: writers
By SiN on 9/4/2008 4:18:56 PM , Rating: 2
ive been thinking about this lately, and why no scientist has really pointed to the idea that it may be close to the end of its life. just thinking.


RE: writers
By Noya on 9/4/2008 5:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
And the very few sunspots recently.


RE: writers
By Bruneauinfo on 9/7/2008 5:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
we just add more mass to the sun. launch all our priuses into the sun... problem solved!


RE: writers
By Nik00117 on 9/8/2008 5:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
Can't forget about ensuring that all the greenpeace hippies are in their priuses. That'll add more mass!


RE: writers
By erikejw on 9/4/08, Rating: -1
RE: writers
By atrabilious on 9/4/2008 9:46:08 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Masher failed to mention that 2007 was an extreme low for the last 30 years.
Guess you can't read. From the article:
quote:
Ice extent for the same month in 2007 covered 5.3 million square kilometers, a historic low.


It seems you're the one with the agenda, knocking articles you haven't even read.


RE: writers
By foolsgambit11 on 9/4/2008 1:18:25 PM , Rating: 1
Granted, he should have been more pointed in his criticism. I think his major point was still that the article failed to mention that, despite this year being better than last, it is still not good. In fact, it's still one of the worst years since we've had satellites monitoring ice coverage.

Both sides in the climate change debate use data smoothing to make their points, because the raw data varies considerably, and the patterns must be teased out of the data. Exactly how you go out smoothing the data, and which data is most relevant, are the issues that lead to contention between the believers and unbelievers. Granted, AGW supporters sensationalized the data from last year somewhat - one data point does not make a pattern - but it was a dramatic and precipitous drop, and there was cause for some concern. There still is.


RE: writers
By masher2 (blog) on 9/4/2008 2:16:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "In fact, it's still one of the worst years "

Or one of the best, depending on your point of view. The opening of the Northwest and Northeast Passages alone will save millions of barrels of diesel fuel each year. Lower sea ice levels will also open up a large amount of Arctic resources.

And the best part is, it all happens without any ocean rise, as sea ice doesn't affect sea levels in the least.

That aside, the data still shows a clear *increase* from last year. Given the large number of earlier news reports this year that 2008 would be far worse than the year before, this increase is certainly significant.


RE: writers
By foolsgambit11 on 9/5/2008 12:11:19 PM , Rating: 4
Touche.

I agree, Jason Mick's article you linked to was alarmist and premature (although, as you point out, he was repeating what was commonly reported earlier this year), and that this increase may have some significance. But I think you're giving it more significance than it is due. It's just a single data point, and as another poster pointed out, comparing the same date in two different years is hardly revealing of any sort of trend. The trend would be a little clearer by noting that the three worst (or best) years for Arctic sea ice have been in the last four years.

That indicates were in a warm period. I personally wouldn't make any predictions of the future based on that, except a general bet that next year we probably won't see sea ice above the 20th century average.


RE: writers
By murphyslabrat on 9/4/2008 10:04:42 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why not produce good interesting unbiased material.

And what does "unbiased" mean, eh? That it fits your bias? Both Michael and Jason are at sufficiently polarized (pun acknowledged, but not intended) sides of the issue that as long as you read both sides, it really doesn't matter.

At least, I prefer it to some goody two-shoes claiming they're the bastion of all good and unbiased opinion, like the national news networks do.

quote:
Maybe not every blog should be published on the front page. Maybe their need to be someone that decides what to publish.

They're frikin' blogs, for cryin' out loud!?!?


RE: writers
By troublesome08 on 9/8/2008 2:49:31 PM , Rating: 3
SUN: The Sun’s magnetic field is over 230 percent stronger now than it was at the beginning of the 1900s, and its overall energetic activity has sizably increased, creating a frenzy of activity that continues to embarrass NASA’s official predictions.

VENUS: Venus is now glowing in the dark, as is Jupiter’s moon Io.

EARTH: In the last 30 years, Earth’s icecaps have thinned out by as much as 40 percent. Quite inexplicably, just since 1997 the structure of the Earth has shifted from being slightly more egg-shaped, or elongated at the poles, to more pumpkin-shaped, or flattened at the poles. No one at NASA has even bothered to try to explain this yet. Link to full article at NASA. http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020801gravityf...

MARS: The icecaps of Mars noticeably melted just within one year, causing 50-percent changes in surface features. Atmospheric density had risen by 200 percent above previous observations as of 1997.

JUPITER: Jupiter has become so highly energized that it is now surrounded by a visibly glowing donut tube of energy in the path of the moon Io. The size of Jupiter’s magnetic field has more than doubled since 1992.

SATURN: Saturn’s polar regions have been noticeably brightening, and its magnetic field strength increasing.

URANUS: According to NASA’s Voyager II space probe, Uranus and Neptune both appear to have had recent magnetic pole shifts – 60 degrees for Uranus and 50 for Neptune.

NEPTUNE: Neptune has become 40 percent brighter in infrared since 1996, and is fully 100-percent brighter in certain areas. Also, Neptune’s moon Triton has had a “very large percentage increase” in atmospheric pressure and temperature, comparable to a 22-degree Fahrenheit increase on Earth.

PLUTO: As of September 2002, Pluto has experienced a 300-percent increase in its atmospheric pressure in the last 14 years, while also becoming noticeably darker in color.


RE: writers
By porkpie on 9/3/2008 3:07:17 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Cold places get much too cold, warm places way too warm and such. More hurricanes, more superstorms, more heatwaves, etc.
That's BS. Global warming (if true) means CO2 in the atmosphere traps more heat. Cold dry areas are supposed to heat up more, but the idea that "everything just gets more extreme" is flat out wrong.

It's also unfalsifiable. When ANYTHING that happens can be said to be global warming, then you can't disprove the theory. Which means it isn't science. Look up the scientific method and the definition of falsifiability.

By the way, you missed the memo. No GW scientist believes storms will get stronger any more.


RE: writers
By hotel77 on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: writers
By 306maxi on 9/3/2008 3:19:43 PM , Rating: 3
What a load of BS. The weather is going to get more extreme argument only came out after it became apparent warming wasn't happening on the global scale it was meant to and that it wasn't killing us.

Hurrican season longer my butt. If you look at weather historically there are periods just like the ones we have now. People simply can't comprehend that "normal" weather doesn't exist and that climate doesn't follow our definitions of seasons and so on.

I've lived in the UK for a bit over 2 years and I've had 3 Summers. First summer I was here it was pretty warm and it was warmish up until November, then the next summer was a total washout there was a lot of flooding in the UK and this summer has been similar but a little less extreme. Funny thing is these two totally opposite Summers that we've had were both blamed on "Climate change" what a crock of youknowwhat.

The fact is that just as I don't know what's going to happen to me tomorrow, Scientists don't actually know how to predict "events" like the ones we've had in the last few years. Climate change science is no better than when those crackpots look in the Bible and find words which speak about past events. When someone finds something in the bible that predicts a future event that turns out to actually happen I'll believe it. The same for climate change. If they can predict what the weather is going to do roughly next year and it happens that way then I'll believe them. Until then I'll continue to call BS on their entire argument.


RE: writers
By FITCamaro on 9/3/2008 3:31:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When someone finds something in the bible that predicts a future event that turns out to actually happen I'll believe it.


People have claimed the Bible has predicted many events. 9/11 included. I'm not saying they're right. Just saying people claim the Bible has predicted many things.


RE: writers
By MozeeToby on 9/3/2008 4:45:21 PM , Rating: 3
No, people have looked back on the bible after the fact and shown that the bible 'predicted' the event. It's easy to make it fit in reverse, looking back, I bet I can find a half dozen video games that have 'predicted' 9/11.


RE: writers
By deeznuts on 9/4/2008 2:23:48 PM , Rating: 1
Video Games? Pffft, just listen to Biggie Smalls in Juicy:

"Blow up like the world trade"


RE: writers
By Siki on 9/5/2008 2:51:43 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah, one of the World Trade Center buildings was bombed in 1993. The Bible's ability to predict is quite similar to what you indicated: things that have occurred before are likely to happen again; state that they will, then wait for everyone to forget the reference for your statement.


RE: writers
By SouthernOregonZealot on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: writers
By bodar on 9/3/2008 8:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
OK, I'll bite. These numerous corroborating documents being...?


RE: writers
By SouthernOregonZealot on 9/4/2008 7:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry it took awhile to reply. Have to make tents to feed my family.

OK. So, The Dead Sea scrolls, original fragments of manuscripts, historic documents from ancient cultures (you have to research the reference titles on these), eye witness accounts not included in the canonized bible, archeological research papers and findings, theological language studies for translation from original manuscripts (some by theologians, others by scholars that are not theologians) and the list can go on and on. You see, just as with “scientific discovery” you have to rely on the research of others (that is of course unless you do the research yourself) that can be proven by repeated experimentation by peers. So, with ancient documents, you have to compare these to other historic records and accounts to verify accuracy. The supporting documents to the “canonized bible” do just this.

For example, if you sit in a chair, you are trusting that it will support your weight. Right? If not, you would not sit in the chair. You are relying on someone else to verify the chair will support your load.

Don’t take the Bible as a scientific document and you won’t find you have as many problems with the “beliefs” some people hold about what it says. The truth the Bible expresses if far deeper than just the 10 commandments and a debatable age of the earth. It expresses a story of pure love for ones creation. There are a few exceptions out there to a fathers desire for only the absolute best for his offspring (not folks I would consider all that together), but what the Bible states in a nut shell is a father (the Creator of EVERTHING) wants to have a personal relationship with YOU (and all His children) and would go to almost any length to prove to you He loves you and wants only what is best for you.


RE: writers
By HrilL on 9/3/2008 8:22:09 PM , Rating: 2
You really are a Zealot.

quote:
(admittedly, this description doesn’t do the bible justice, since it is the actual words of God.)


I don't want to get into a religious debate but some of us know that that book while some stories may be true is not the word of god at all. Who are you to claim there is a god? And secondly if you look back at history the book was written to keep the masses at bay while the rich and powerful stayed that way while the poor suffered and were told "you get to suffer through this life so that you can go to heaven and have a happy life after death." Its a book of control and nothing more.

Also any prediction without a date or time frame means absolutely nothing. Just like I can predict you are going to die... Wow I'm right too... Now it would be a prediction if I said you were going to die tomorrow and you did. But when it is completely general its not a prediction at all.


RE: writers
By SouthernOregonZealot on 9/4/2008 2:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I am a Zealot, but I would be willing to make the assumption you really don't understand what I am a Zealot about.

"Its a book of control and nothing more."

I would like to ask you most respectfully to read through the book of Romans (yes, in the Bible). It will not take you too long. But, please keep in mind; you are not going to have the same opinion about the "goal" of what the Bible is attempting to communicate, that is if you keep your own mind focused and open to what is being communicated verses a pre-formed opinion based on other folks opinions. You really don't quite understand the Bible’s message if you say it is a book of control. I think that statement reflects the way some folks have twisted the words around for fit their own goals. However the independent mind will study the bible as a whole and not take selective passages out to fit their agenda.

I encourage you, no; I challenge your intelligent mind to investigate this. I would be willing to BET if what you believed, today, was not the truth, that you would want to know what the truth is!


RE: writers
By MisterChristopher on 9/5/2008 4:24:09 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with this statement is that if I (or anyone else for that matter) were attempting to write a book of control, I would certainly make it a point to seem as though I was not attempting to write a book of control. In fact, someone as interested in control as I am, might probably think to specifically include text which makes you think I am writing the book only for your benefit.

The best way to make you think what is written is benefiting you, is to actually mix things that benefit you with things that control you. At that point, I own you.


RE: writers
By SouthernOregonZealot on 9/5/2008 4:49:53 PM , Rating: 2
"The best way to make you think what is written is benefiting you, is to actually mix things that benefit you with things that control you. At that point, I own you."

I see your point. And it would be a valid point. I see that you are wise and think about things from a logical point of view. However, I must request again that you read, for yourself, The Book of Romans and The Book of Galatians (again, both in the new testament of the bible.)

You see, when I was younger, my father created an environment that actually “controlled” my development as a young man into someone who would eventually contribute to or take from society. Though many, if not all, of what he did was for my best interest. So, if this is the type of control you are referring to, then I think you are starting to understand the character of God. In the end, my father always allowed me to make mistakes, but was always there to help me learn from those mistakes and gave me the grace, love and support I needed, but did not deserve through the learning process.

The truth that many people twist up about the bible is the “control” part vs. the grace part. It is because people take selective passages from the bible to fit their own agenda. Kind of like that Rev. Wright character Obama is buds with.

Once you meet someone who has surrendered to the gift God has given us in His Son, you will more understand the issue of control vs. grace.


RE: writers
By William Gaatjes on 9/7/2008 8:56:09 AM , Rating: 2
At that time , part of the romans realized that the cristianity was becoming big and it was not in their favour. Thus the Roman Catholic Church was born and they stayed in charge. Do you know by the way most chapters where written by roman writers and poets ?

Good politics is all about deception...


RE: writers
By notromda on 9/8/2008 11:39:22 AM , Rating: 2
The ways in which political bodies have perverted the meaning of the Bible does not invalidate the actual truth of the Bible. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.


RE: writers
By William Gaatjes on 9/9/2008 5:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
I am not doubting the message like the 10 commands.

But those commands are logical to people who think before they act.


RE: writers
By notromda on 9/8/2008 12:05:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Once you meet someone who has surrendered to the gift God has given us in His Son, you will more understand the issue of control vs. grace.


Indeed, this is the central theme that separates followers of Jesus from all other religions. (I won't use the term "Christian" since that seems to trip up people who can't see through the imperfections inherent in sinful man trying to follow a perfect path)

All other religions require acts, or works to gain favor or status, to achieve the better end. The truth taught by Jesus, however, is that we can never attain that level of goodness on our own. (Which seems self evident). It is God's grace and mercy that is extended to us, for the low cost of believing it. But he will not control that aspect of our destiny, not while we live - we have to choose it ourselves.


RE: writers
By Andy35W on 9/8/2008 12:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
God doesn't exist and Jesus is dead.

That's my atheistic interpretation of matters as they stand circa 8th September 2008. There's no physical evidence to the contrary as far as I can see.

This is very off topic, the irrelevant to what is happened in the Arctic.

Regards

Andy


RE: writers
By SouthernOregonZealot on 9/9/2008 2:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
OK. I can admit that we strayed a bit away from the main topic; however what's more important than your eye sight! Just ask any blind person!

If you can not look around yourself and see evidence that there is a master behind all this design, then my friend, you just aren’t interested in opening your eyes. I think most folks that say they are atheist have not really spent ANY time investigating what they really believe in the first place. But, keep watching those TV commercials and that main stream media and I am sure they will lead you to facts that aren’t twisted to “control” your mind.

In the mean time, I am going to keep raising my children to love their neighbors and their God with all their heart, to show and have joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. And I am going to keep teaching them to avoid sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.


RE: writers
By HrilL on 9/25/2008 9:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
No one denies that that bible has a good message in it and that it can help people live better lives but the simple fact is you can learn those same things without it as I have and many other people around the world have as well. Plus there are many many more people that believe in god that are in jail than there are of people who don't. Don't you find it kind of odd? Wait I don't because they'll just be forgive and go to this made up land called heaven. People who do bad things shouldn't be allowed to do bad things just because they can ask to be forgiven and all will be fine and dandy with god. I can't agree with that. Bad people should be PUNISHED for what they have done. Out of everyone I know the people that don't go to church turn out to be better people overall. I've even had people tell me it doesn't matter what they do because they'll go to church on Sunday and everything will be fine.


RE: writers
By Yossarian22 on 9/3/2008 9:25:20 PM , Rating: 2
Do you honestly not see the problem in arguing that the bible essentially proves itself?


RE: writers
By SouthernOregonZealot on 9/4/2008 2:43:20 PM , Rating: 2
NO. You see, the Bible itself is a collection of writings that were spread over thousands of years, geography and poeple groups. So, it would be no different than someones research paper that pulls in various authors in this respect.


RE: writers
By pomaikai on 9/4/2008 9:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
I am watching a movie based on a real story. Now imagine that I dont know it is based on a true story. Now since I can link a few of the things in the movie to a real life event does that mean I should believe that everything in the movie is based on fact? And that everything happened exactly as in the movie?


RE: writers
By SouthernOregonZealot on 9/5/2008 4:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think what we are forgetting here is that the bible itself is a consistent story written by numerous authors that were separated by long periods of time, geography and cultures.

I am a little confused about the movie examples relevancy to this.


RE: writers
By William Gaatjes on 9/7/2008 8:43:46 AM , Rating: 2
If you ever have the chance start comparing bibles from different times and different publishers.I can guarantee you that after that you only want to read the original bible. But that is going to be difficult. Through the centuries a lot of old manuscripts, books , texts have been destroyed in wars for various reasons.
I have done some comparing to some extent and it is amazing how much differences there are between different versions of the bible. I have also the opinion that religious texts are altered to suit the ones in charge.

And then again most situations described in the bible are just situations happening in life. Bound to happen again.
If that may be of human nature or just nature it self.
To name a few : Wars , floodings , hurricanes , earthquakes.

If you want to believe in god, do it from the believe that humans shine when they exhibit the best qualities humans have like altruistic behaviour like sacrifice. Good people sacrifice every day a little.
May it be giving your last icecream to your child when you where really hungry for it too ( rich western world no hunger example). Or helping out people without expecting anything back than gratitude.


RE: writers
By Fireshade on 9/8/2008 12:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have also the opinion that religious texts are altered to suit the ones in charge.

I concur.
The New Testament -as we know it- was written by order of emperor Constantin of the Byzantian Empire. To suit his own crowd-control purposes of course.


RE: writers
By SouthernOregonZealot on 9/9/2008 3:05:57 PM , Rating: 2
The Bible has been translated by numerous different "authorities" over the centuries with various attempts to “localize” or if you prefer “internationalize” translations of the Bible. Translations are becoming more and more accurate to the original fragmented texts with respect to language differences every year.

In fact, even folks that are out to “disprove” the bible or point out supposed flaws to scripture have been involved with this process. The really cool part is we now have at our disposal much more accurate and understandable translations.

And you are correct to say that some “authorities” had tried to use the Bible in the past to control the people. When I was young, I was raised as a C&E Catholic (meaning we went to church on Christmas and Easter.) The guys up front read a few passages from some book other then the Bible. When I was old enough to understand things, one day, I looked around at church and NOBODY was carrying a Bible. Instead, they were relying on someone else for their info instead of reading what the Bible states itself!

When you say “Good people sacrifice every day a little” I would be willing to bet that you don’t know ANYBODY who would voluntarily be beaten, scourged, cursed and much worse ending in physical death of the body, for someone else who lies, cheats, steals, murders, rapes and the list keeps going (any of those sound familiar?) A “little sacrifice” is nothing like taking the punishment you would have dished out to the worst offenders on yourself.


RE: writers
By William Gaatjes on 9/9/2008 5:19:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you say “Good people sacrifice every day a little” I would be willing to bet that you don’t know ANYBODY who would voluntarily be beaten, scourged, cursed and much worse ending in physical death of the body, for someone else who lies, cheats, steals, murders, rapes and the list keeps going (any of those sound familiar?) A “little sacrifice” is nothing like taking the punishment you would have dished out to the worst offenders on yourself.


From my recent history :
Somebody i don't like anyway (lies and steals)was almost beaten up, but i jumped in between anyway. Cause it felt wrong not to come in between. I could have had to fight too but lucky for me i could cool both of them down.

There are many people out there trying to protect lives risking their own. To give a proper example, what do you think the fine soldiers are doing.

And there are enough sadly true horror stories about mothers and fathers sacrificing, defending and believing in their children when these children have done awfull things to their parents and other people.

And if all the rapists, murderers and so on would turn into good people just by sacrificing my life i would do it right away as i know a lot of people would. But that is a dream.

Too put your mind at ease, i am not here to deny possible existence of a more powerfull entity out there in the universe. Call it god if you wish. There are far more questions about our vast universe then we have answers. I just don't believe that the current bibles gives an accurate description of what is possible.

And i once read that the roman catolic church refuses to let all the old papers and scrolls to be studied by outsiders. I don't know if that is true tho.


RE: writers
By SouthernOregonZealot on 9/9/2008 6:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
I will tell you what, if you hold your hand out, voluntarily, allow me to drive a rusty railroad spike through it with a mallet and then, hold your other hand out, voluntarily, and allow me to drive another rusty railroad spike through it too, all while I am spitting at you and cursing at you, and then you allow me to hang you up on a log until you die, then I will let you teach me to be a good person, OK?

Will you do this for me?


RE: writers
By William Gaatjes on 9/10/2008 2:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
I will do better. You are describing that you must follow blindly without learning the lesson Jesus tried to teach.
See the world like he saw it. Be a person with the best qualities the human race has. That is the message. What you are describing is the control i was talking about.


RE: writers
By SouthernOregonZealot on 9/9/2008 6:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the reference if you care to read more:

Romans 6: 6-8 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.


RE: writers
By William Gaatjes on 9/10/2008 2:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
According to the religious people we humans are made after the image of god. Then why are we sinnners by nature if god is good ?
Another part of control this is. We are supossed to be evil by default. That way we are easier to control.

The only burden we carry and you can call it evil if you like is we still have preprogrammed responses in our genes we don't need anymore. But these can be controlled with the intelligent mind. That was one of the messages of jesus.
Let us stop being savages. Does enlightenment mean anything ?
I use the name Jesus here cause i am reffering to the person who lived 2000 years ago. If he may be who you say he is or not.


RE: writers
By charlieee on 9/4/2008 1:35:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When someone finds something in the bible that predicts a future event that turns out to actually happen I'll believe it.


Doctrine and Covenants 88:89-91
For after your testimony [calling to repentance, to believe on the Lord] cometh the testimony of earthquakes, that shall cause groanings in the midst of her, and men shall fall upon the ground and shall not be able to stand.
And also cometh the testimony of the voice of thunderings, and the voice of lightnings, and the voice of tempests, and the voice of the waves of the sea heaving themselves beyond their bounds.
And all things shall be in commotion; and surely, men’s hearts shall fail them; for fear shall come upon all people.

John 14: 29
And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.

John 4:48
Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.

John 20: 25,27,29
The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.
• • •
Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.
• • •
Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.


RE: writers
By Myg on 9/4/2008 4:25:38 AM , Rating: 2
Careful now; Jesus is the saviour of man: not events. No point in using vagueness to try and push an agenda. Tho I always do love how powerful the words of the diciples and of the man upstairs, himself, are :-)

If you really wanted to show the whole prediction thing; why not use the part where Peter is told he will deny Jesus three times (and consequently does), no?

Anyways; The point of this should be to push how Jesus taught taking responsbility in life in all things. The enviroment included! (BTW Responsiblity doesnt always mean excerting force/control).

God created the earth, and gave it a balance and wisdom to look after itself. Which means we should put more effort in tuning ourselves to how it works and try to co-exist instead of dominating.

We might end up causing much more damage through our flawed ways of dealing with this "issue" then we could of ever dreamed of.

Not to mention the media is having a grand old time working us up on it too! Its amazing how much control over people's minds they have! If you feel strongly about this stuff, step back a minute and take a moment or two to contemplate balanced and possibly wise steps to assist in our shared responsiblity. Less talking more action is something we can agree on.


RE: writers
By rawlic on 9/3/2008 3:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
I know what climate change means. First in the 1970s it was global cooling. Then it turned out data didn't reflect that, so it became man made global warming. Then it turned out that parts of the planet are warming, other are cooling; so now its called man made climate change.

So maybe you should remember that a scientific definition and what everyone outside the community calls something can be different at times.


RE: writers
By FITCamaro on 9/3/2008 3:28:54 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Look at the hurricane season, it's getting longer, harder and more dangerous every passing year


The past two years have yielded hurricane seasons with less than expected storms. 2005 was a bad year. This year looks to be around average.

By your logic we would now have 20+ named storms per year as 1995 was the worst season on record with 19 named storms.


RE: writers
By Hyperion1400 on 9/3/2008 6:46:06 PM , Rating: 1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Atlantic_hurrica...

2005: 28 named storms

Couldn't be more wrong. I live on the Gulf Coast and I remember laughing my ass of in hysteria as Hurricane Gamma rolled in from the Atlantic. That being said, hurricane seasons are random as hell. After that one it was like Africa was tapped out for the next two years and we had record droughts b/c of it. This one does look like it's shaping up to be a "normal" season though.


RE: writers
By Chernobyl68 on 9/3/2008 3:29:16 PM , Rating: 3
wikipedia:

quote:
Global warming is the increase in the average measured temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century, and its projected continuation.


easy to understand definition. where did you get yours?


RE: writers
By Noya on 9/4/2008 5:44:27 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
More hurricanes, more superstorms, more heatwaves, etc.


You're watching too much of the "fear mongering" shows on Discovery/History. Those channels are a joke- anytime a major Hollywood movie comes out they do a "special" about it (Batman Tech - The Dark Knight, When Humans are Gone - I am Legend and plenty of others). Not to mention TLC is strictly a chick channel now.


RE: writers
By Polynikes on 9/3/2008 7:37:17 PM , Rating: 2
It truly is a shame this stuff isn't more widely reported.


RE: writers
By kattanna on 9/3/2008 4:03:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
is it a bad thing when you can correctly guess the author of an article just by the headline?


heck no..

honestly, who here wouldnt like to put these 2 into a room together and watch them hash it out while munching popcorn?


RE: writers
By The Night Owl on 9/3/2008 4:57:44 PM , Rating: 2
LOL!


RE: writers
By KC7SWH on 9/3/2008 7:12:59 PM , Rating: 4
Yep knew it couldn't be from Jason.


RE: writers
By General Disturbance on 9/4/2008 1:49:18 PM , Rating: 1
Oh lord here we go...once again.
I'm starting to avoid these articles like the plague...can't take all the idiocy portrayed by both sides in these comments.


RE: writers
By krayon51 on 9/8/2008 7:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
Does this mean that Al Gore will sleep with the polar bears? He always seemed to be lieing when his lips moved.


Bogus Science
By Parker75 on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Bogus Science
By porkpie on 9/3/2008 4:43:22 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
This is not science
It's fact. Asher even provided a link to the actual data, so you can go and generate the same images yourself. I don't see CNN ever do that, do you? So what exactly are you questioning here? Do you think the scientists at the NSIDC are lying to us?


RE: Bogus Science
By Parker75 on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Bogus Science
By porkpie on 9/3/2008 5:04:20 PM , Rating: 5
You ignored the point. The FACT here is that the ice has increased. This isn't open to dispute.

You can form your own OPINION that this is a temporary situation, or that it means nothing in relation to global warming. But that doesn't change the facts, and the article itself draws no conclusions. Its a balanced, accurate piece. Your only problem with it seems to be you wish the facts were different, so people would be a bit more frightened.

Personally I think this is temporary as well. The Arctic was melting long before we started burning fossil fuels. It's going to keep doing it.


RE: Bogus Science
By Parker75 on 9/3/08, Rating: -1
RE: Bogus Science
By onelittleindian on 9/3/2008 5:39:00 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
It's called a propaganda when a "news" source only covers one aspect of an issue.
You mean like CNN, BBC, and every other mainstream news source? You never hear about any of the research that doesn't support their views. There's even stories about CNN reporters calling scientists for quotes, then hanging up the minute they say something they don't like.

Daily Tech seems to cover both sides of the issue. Just today, a story on ice increase and another one on a temperature study. One seems to support GW, the other refutes it. So what's your problem?


RE: Bogus Science
By Parker75 on 9/3/08, Rating: 0
RE: Bogus Science
By onelittleindian on 9/3/2008 6:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ou're saying CNN and BBC does it so why can't Asher do it too?
Actually what I'm asking is why you think its OK for CNN and BBC to present only one side of the issue.

And it's not what the majority of scientists believe. Back when CNN was telling us the 2005 hurricane season was due to GW, there was only one scientist in the world saying that, and even he changed his mind later. Everyone else said he was full of crap. Ever see an interview with any of them?


RE: Bogus Science
By Parker75 on 9/3/2008 7:14:55 PM , Rating: 1
Who said it was okay for them to present only one side of the issue? Me? If you think I'm a proponent of any network media you'd sadly mistaken.


RE: Bogus Science
By Parker75 on 9/3/2008 7:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
"Actually what I'm asking is why you think its OK for CNN and BBC to present only one side of the issue."

So what I'm asking is why do you think it's okay for Asher to present only one side of the issue? I did not say CNN or BBC was f