backtop

Blog: Science Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979
Michael Asher (Blog) - January 1, 2009 11:31 AM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 336 comment(s) - last by Doann.. on Jan 17 at 12:24 PM

Thirty years of sea ice data. The record begins at 1979, the year satellite observations began  (Source: Arctic Research Center, University of Illinois)
Rapid growth spurt leaves amount of ice at levels seen 29 years ago.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

Sea ice is floating and, unlike the massive ice sheets anchored to bedrock in Greenland and Antarctica, doesn't affect ocean levels. However, due to its transient nature, sea ice responds much faster to changes in temperature or precipitation and is therefore a useful barometer of changing conditions.

Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery. Bill Chapman, a researcher with the UIUC's Arctic Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.

Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

In May, concerns over disappearing sea ice led the U.S. 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
Seals are in trouble now...
By mjcutri on 1/1/2009 11:48:00 AM , Rating: 4
Well, now that the sea ice is increasing, the polar bears are going to have better access to seals now. We must put seals on the protected species list to prevent their slaughter by the polar bears...

/sarcasm




RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By ang sang on 1/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By vulcanproject on 1/1/2009 11:59:56 AM , Rating: 4
if anything its just more data to support my theory - humans actually know sweet FA about this planet and its cycles. we shouldnt presume otherwise


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By JimCouch on 1/6/2009 3:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
Britney and Madonna must have put their paints back on HA...
God help us if they ever have a go at each other there may be a nuclear reaction


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Talon75 on 1/8/2009 7:04:09 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, someone else who shares my opinion. We are indeed an arrogant species if we think we can possibly affect mother nature more than mother nature herself. It's like trying to stop a freight train with a BB-gun... Not too mention as vulcan so eloquently put it, we don't know jack about what's going on. The theories of this and that change every week....


By AnnihilatorX on 1/10/2009 8:28:13 AM , Rating: 3
It depends on what context. If we are to eliminate most mammals in this planet, it's a relatively easy task.
If we are to get rid of all germs or insects, it's much harder and nigh impossible.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By tjr508 on 1/9/2009 10:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
A "5" post with an F-bomb reference on DT? Kudos.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Grabo on 1/10/2009 9:54:41 AM , Rating: 2
You're seeing what you want to see.

The fact is that masher's point has been picked apart and disproven already, and no environmental scientist' says we don't know anything about the climate.

That you should get uprated to 5 and the one you responded to, who is alot closer to the truth should get downrated to 0 is just a sad fact whenever asher posts something here.


By tookablighty on 1/16/2009 4:46:26 PM , Rating: 3
Cobber, you keep saying its been disproven but the graph is still up there proving otherwise.

I trust real scientists but 'environmental scientists' are more like chiropractors. Mine made my back feel a mite better, but he believes everything from lung cancer to toothaches is the result of some spinal condition.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Nfarce on 1/1/2009 12:09:08 PM , Rating: 5
I love how you asshat Algorebot fascists call anyone "denialists" when challenging junk science.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By psychobriggsy on 1/1/09, Rating: -1
RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By greenchasch on 1/1/2009 10:49:53 PM , Rating: 5
A single data point? There's 30 years of data on that chart. Do you see a trend? I sure don't.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Targon on 1/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By d0gb0y on 1/2/2009 9:30:27 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
A good way to track global warming is to look, not just at the average temperatures, but at the number of days where the temperature is in a given range. How many days each year is the temperature above 100F, in the range of 32-40F, in the 20-32F range, and in the sub 20 degree range.


What would this tell us? Actually not much. If you don't compare year to year, then how can you spot a trend or now what is normal vs abnormal?

quote:
Back in the 1970s, you could expect a fair number of days when snow would close the schools. In the 1990s through today though, the number of snow days has dropped by quite a bit.


I'm glad you are using so much scientific method to come up with your conclusion. Perhaps there are other factors to why there are less school days closed because of snow. Perhaps the town doulbled the snow plows? It would be neat if you actually used data, like inches of snow comparing the 70s to now. Or temperatures even. Would that be too technical for you? Or do you like sticking to "superficial" indicators.

Sorry... couldn't resist.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By jfearins on 1/5/2009 11:44:12 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'm glad you are using so much scientific method to come up with your conclusion. Perhaps there are other factors to why there are less school days closed because of snow. Perhaps the town doulbled the snow plows? It would be neat if you actually used data, like inches of snow comparing the 70s to now. Or temperatures even. Would that be too technical for you? Or do you like sticking to "superficial" indicators.


I doubt they have anything more than personal anecdotal evidence to prove their claim. Here is something, though, that refutes their "evidence": Long Island snow fall so far this year is approximately double the average.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By BIG AL Z on 1/7/09, Rating: 0
By JonMoseley on 1/8/2009 9:52:47 AM , Rating: 3
You demonstrate your lack of scientific knowledge by lumping carbon monoxide together with carbon dioxide.

The status of these two could not be more radically different.

Carbon monoxide is a dangerous pollutant, particularly because lacking an oxygen molecule to form CO2 it is highly reactive.

Carbon dioxide is completely harmless, and is vital for all life on Earth.

You are engaging in typical political rhetoric and spin. By mixing together two completely different items, you reach an unsupportable conclusion that only the guillible will fall for.


By Stephen Macklin on 1/12/2009 7:17:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
TextBack in the 1970s, you could expect a fair number of days when snow would close the schools. In the 1990s through today though, the number of snow days has dropped by quite a bit.


Back in the 70's, at least where I grew up, snow days were strictly binary. We either had school or we didn't. Now more often than not they have delayed opening. This gives them time to clear up roads and schools and still get in a long enough day to count. Thus they have fewer cancellations,


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Doann on 1/17/2009 12:24:03 PM , Rating: 3
An interesting thing to note regarding Schools being closed less often because of "Snow Days" is the simple fact that the public funding for schools is determined in part by the daily attendance so when a School is "officially closed" it loses funding for that day - no students - less funding! A second fact is that there are more "two income" families which adds further pressure on the schools to remain open for as many days as possibly.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By masher2 (blog) on 1/2/2009 10:59:54 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Growing up here on Long Island, NY, there were a LOT more days when schools would be closed for big snow storms than there are today...It may be a part of a natural cycle, but it does seem like there are fewer true cold days today than in the past.
According to NASA's GISS, Long Island has slightly *cooled* in recent decades-- not warmed. See my previous post on the subject for a link.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By ipay on 1/8/09, Rating: 0
By crimson117 on 1/8/2009 5:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
Neither of these were very useful observations...

Long Island getting slightly colder is not proof against global warming - nor does it mean we should expect more or less snow there.

And experiencing fewer snowy days in LI does not let you conclude the whole climate is changing.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Exton1 on 1/3/2009 2:25:36 AM , Rating: 5
What are you a propagandist for Al Gore? Never read such hogwash in my life. Wake up the planet is not in danger, and mankind cannot destroy it or save it if it wanted. Notice that the Marxist now say Climate Change, now that the IPCC has admitted that we have been cooling for about 10 years. Also, NOT ONE PREDICTION by Al Gore or the other pushers have ever come true? That NONE of there computer models have predicted this current cooling trend, and that the solution to everything – warming, cooling, change or not change- is the same – bigger government, higher taxes, less rights, more central planning socialism. Don’t be one of Lennon’s useful idiots.


By Martin Blank on 1/4/2009 4:10:36 PM , Rating: 3
John Lennon was generally a much nicer guy than that, and I doubt he called too many people useful idiots.

Oh, perhaps you meant Vladimir Lenin...


By Reclaimer77 on 1/3/2009 12:20:09 PM , Rating: 2
tltr


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By mattinva on 1/5/2009 12:03:26 PM , Rating: 5
Sure, but there are TONS of "data points" that provide the same information. Arctic ice is increasing. Antarctic ice is increasing. This article points out that arctic SEA ice increased. The average global temperature has been on a downward trend since 1998. The warmest year on record is 1934, and 5 of the top 10 warmest years recorded by NASA were in the 20's and 30s.

How many datapoints do we need before we can say that AGW (which is now being called climate change, because of all the cooling) may not be 100% proven? I find it odd that the Global Warming Theory must be taken as a Law, despite the fact that the computer models supporting it have sofar proved inaccurate. Even if there WAS consensus in the scientific community, that wouldn't prove the Theory.


By global warming is real on 1/5/2009 6:48:14 PM , Rating: 1
NASA didn't exist in the 20's and 30's so I don't think they recorded anything during that time frame.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By tvskeptic on 1/5/2009 1:00:23 PM , Rating: 3
For true believers, all data fits the theory when it comes to global warming.


By crimson117 on 1/8/2009 6:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
Well while it's true that the end of year 2008 matched the end of year 1979 according to that chart, you could have written the opposite article using the same reasoning... You could observe that from 1979-1995, the minimum red peak was -1.5, and it was usually just -1.0. But from 2002-2008, it was consistently peaking at -2, and the past 3 years it was peaking at -3.

So why wouldn't you be interested in the fact that over the past 15 years, the variation has been much stronger than the 15 before that?

I'm not saying my numbers are particularly meaningful, but neither is the fact that one data point on December 31st 2008 happened to equal one data point on December 31st 1979.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By inighthawki on 1/2/2009 12:37:29 AM , Rating: 4
You talk about those who don't believe in global warming as though your still unproven opinion is the correct one. As of now I have yet to see a single article or piece of data that shows global warming is the truthful conclusion, since we do not yet have any actual evidence that supports the claim. You see the articles of ice melting, but do you not care to read about the ice that is growing? You hear of rising temperatures, but do you ignore the record low temperatures and record snow fall (and even snow in places its never snowed before)?

You seem very ignorant to come in here and tell that the people who don't believe in global warming only read single sided articles too, yet every article ON global warming never presents any alternative. They always try to point out that nothing other than CO2 emissions could possibly ever account for what happened.

Can you give examples of these "debunked aruments?"


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Targon on 1/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By JonMoseley on 1/5/2009 12:48:08 PM , Rating: 3
TARGON finally discovers that warmer oceans results in more water vapor in the air, and more precipitation -- rain, sleet, and snow.

As a MOISTER global atmosphere comes into contact with the polar ice caps, the result of moist air cooling over the poles is SNOW and ICE (frozen rain).

So the result of global warming must inevitably be GROWING ICE CAPS, and LOWER OCEANS. Heat causes evaporation from the oceans. Evaporation is moist air. Moist air when it comes into contact with cool areas results in SNOW and ICE.

Don't tap dance about wind patterns. Regardless of the first path of moister air from the warmer oceans, moister air will inevitably find its way to the poles, no matter what goes on in between, no matter how long it takes.

So if global warming is occurring, the polar ice caps should be increasing, not shrinking, and the oceans should DROP not rise.

Try putting a pot of boiling water on the stove. Then put a glass of ice-cold lemonade next to it. What will happen? The water will evaporate and will condense on to the ice-cold glass.

Furthermore, the temperatures at the poles remain below freezing. If the temperature increases from -15 C to -13.5 C, it is still below the melting point at 0 C. So how the hell is a 1 degree rise going to melt the polar caps?

Ironically, the growing ice at the poles is consistent with global warming. But the result will be lower sea levels, not higher.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By BreathingCausesGW on 1/6/2009 1:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
i think you might be incorrectly lumping sea ice and land ice in to the same category. Increasing land ice would indeed lower sea levels, but its melting sea ice that also lowers sea levels. why? because its a floating piece of ice. if you put ice in a glass of water and what happens? the water level rises. similarly, when the ice melts, the water level in the glass is lower. the north pole is a floating piece of ice. if it all melted away, it would actually lower sea levels.that is not the case for places like Greenland or the Antarctic, which are mostly land ice formations.
Also, the media seem consumed with talking about arctic sea ice melting, but correct me if i am wrong but i believe that 95% of global sea ice is in the antarctic circle and is growing. is there any evidence to suggest that a rise in sea levels is NOT due to increasing sea ice?


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By robbersdog49 on 1/8/2009 6:00:21 AM , Rating: 4
Err, go and try putting an ice cube in a glass of water. Mark the level of the water on the side of the glass. Now let it melt, check the level of the water and come back and apologise for being wrong...


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By BreathingCausesGW on 1/16/2009 3:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
ummm, are you a 4th grade drop out? water expands and becomes less dense when frozen. Thats one of the unique properties of H2O. Water reaches its maximum density at 39.2 degrees F (3.94 degrees C), then it decreases slightly in density until it reaches 32degrees F (0 degrees C), the freezing point. At this point, ice forms and its density decreases sharply. Ice, therefore, is much lighter than liquid water and thus forms at the surface of lakes rather than at the lake bottom.
I dont know how to make it any more clear than that. But somehow Im pretty sure Im wasting my time even explaining this if you are trying to argue this point.


By masher2 (blog) on 1/16/2009 4:24:06 PM , Rating: 2
> "At this point, ice forms and its density decreases sharply."

Ice is about 90% of the density of water. But for that very reason, a piece of floating ice will be 90% below water, 10% above. Thus, when it melts, it doesn't affect water level.

Another way to look at it is that ice -- or anything else -- displaces its mass when floating. Since the mass remains the same, there's no net change in volume.

Now, ice actually held below the surface (non-floating ice) will then displace its volume in water, not its mass, and would indeed lower water levels when melted. But true floating ice will not.

Now water itself does experience a very slight thermal expansion when heated. Its very small, but a temperature rise across a body of water the size of the ocean can mean a rise of a few millimeters.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By JonMoseley on 1/11/2009 11:17:34 PM , Rating: 3
Well, others might be confusing it.

You are correct that if all the sea ice on the planet melted, the oceans WOULD FALL because ice displaces more volume than liquid water.

And of course the Northern polar ice cap is ALL "sea ice." I think someone else was saying that. The entire Northern ice cap is floating in the water. There is no land mass North of Canada and North of Russia. It is all sea ice.

However, global warming would trap more and more water on the polar ice caps: Especially Antarctica as a land mass.

If the oceans are warmer, more water will be converted into water vapor in the atmosphere. As it finds its way to the poles, it will precipitate and fall to the Earth as snow, rain, or sleet.

SOME will fall on the oceans and will probably not become ice, but will have a chance to be evaporated again later.

SOME will fall on the polar ice caps.

The snow and ice (frozen rain) that falls on Antarctica or the polar ice cap will REMAIN frozen and will accumulate.

To the extent that increased moisture in the atmosphere falls down on the polar ice caps and ACCUMULATES there... the oceans will FALL, not rise.

Certainly the ice and snow on Antarctica, as a solid land mass, would grow and would trap more and more water on land, rather than in the oceans.

So for BOTH the reason you identify and preciptation at the poles, the oceans would FALL if there is global warming.

So mankind would benefit from larger land areas, longer growing seasons, more lush garden-like conditions with more rain. Sounds like paradise.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Grabo on 1/12/2009 10:19:58 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
So for BOTH the reason you identify and preciptation at the poles, the oceans would FALL if there is global warming. So mankind would benefit from larger land areas, longer growing seasons, more lush garden-like conditions with more rain. Sounds like paradise.


Sigh, this is bleeding hopeless..

http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cf...
"Sea level rise is associated with the thermal expansion of sea water due to climate warming and widespread melting of land ice."


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By dever on 1/8/2009 1:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The stink from that city is pretty bad, and comes from a lack of regulations.
What other differences are there between nearly third-world latin America and the United States?

The main difference is government. The US government is founded on principles to protect individual liberties. The governments you describe are corrupt and powerful (this goes hand and hand) while individual liberties are much lower than those in the US.

Remember, pollution is simply an infringement of an individual's freedoms.

If an individual (or individuals in a company) infringe on my liberties through pollution, I have an entire government infrastructure in the US dedicated to help me protect those liberties. It's not the "regulation," it's the dedication to individual freedom.

However, your proposals do the opposite. They increase the power of government, and hence it's surface area for corruption. If an individual's freedoms are not rigorously defended, "regulation" will do nothing. Larger companies benefit the most from more government and more regulation and are able to manipulate the regulatory agencies to their benefit and the detriment of individuals.

Remember, "every government action has a smokestack on it's back." Nothing less than a passionate defense of liberty will reduce pollution and suffering.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By SleepyGreg on 1/2/2009 1:59:21 AM , Rating: 5
No matter whether global warming as a human enduced phenomena proves to be right or wrong, do you really think those generations ahead of us are going to be angry that we invested time and energy into using the worlds resources more frugally, adopted renewable energy solutions, became far less polluting and generally more efficient? That's the way I look at it.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By axeman1957 on 1/2/2009 11:57:00 AM , Rating: 3
I agree, I think global warming in total BS but I also don't see the harm in finding better ways to do things. The only part that bothers me is the feeling people get of "We must use green energy in 10 years or the earth will explode."

Yeah, I pretty much find Al Gore to be one of the dumbest people on the planet and I am glad Bush beat him on a technicality on 2000.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Caper29 on 1/5/2009 11:51:42 AM , Rating: 3
What "technicality" would that be? Having more votes?


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By seattlesobe on 1/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By MamiyaOtaru on 1/10/2009 11:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
Popular votes, yes. But that's not, and never has been, how the president is elected.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By adiposity on 1/15/2009 6:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe the "technicality" that the Supreme court decided to stop counting votes, even though the laws of Florida explicitly allowed recounting contested counties. Oh, and the further "technicality" that said decision only applied to that one election.

I voted for Bush in 2000, and was happy he won. But the Supreme Court clearly cheated, and didn't try to hide it. Every justice who voted to stop the voting clearly did so to crown Bush winner, or else they would have made the case a binding precedent. It's obvious.

Of course if the networks hadn't called it early who knows what would have happened?

-Dan


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By jonathon1st on 1/5/2009 8:02:04 PM , Rating: 2
Better way of doing things???

But what if they make thing worse. For example, DDT The most simple, cheap and safest pesticide we have come up with. It was vilified and all claims made against it have all been proven untrue. We replaced it with more complex and more expensive pesticides that are 1000 time more dangerous to man and animals.

CFC and R12 freon, one person came up with a theory that it harms the ozone and now more studies are proving that is false. Now we have come up with other types of freon that cost 300 times more are less efficient and the motors ,compressors have a much shorter life span because of the oils they have to use with the new types of freon.

The space shuttle that came apart during reintry. The reason why, The foam insulation that they cover the tanks with now is nowhere as strong as the CFC foam insulation that they used to use. Those astronaut died because of envirmental bulls*it. That was easily preventable.

We are taking giant steps backwards trying to fix things that don't need fixing.


By BreathingCausesGW on 1/6/2009 1:41:24 PM , Rating: 3
Here's a conspiracy theory for you.
Who owned the patent for R12 that was set to expire right around the time we switched to r134?
DuPont
Where's DuPont headquarters?
Delaware
Who introduced the bill to ban r12 and switch to r134?
Joe Biden
Where is Joe Biden from?
Delaware
Who owns the patent for r134?
DuPont

you can draw your own conclusions from there. follow the money.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Exton1 on 1/3/2009 2:53:28 AM , Rating: 4
Yes they will be upset because they will be poorer due to wasted resources trying to fix and imaginary problem. They will be better off with the resources the left is trying to block – like oil, coal, and nuclear.
Conversation is great, but why waste time on the myth of renewable energy? Windmills and solar panels are highly expensive and will never contribute more then a few percent of our required energy needs. As for polluting, CO2 is not a pollutant it’s a fertilizer. Don’t fall into the Marxist trap of crating boogey men where they don’t exist. The Luddites have been wrong on DDT, Alar, multiculturalism, and other manmade scare de jour. They are just trying to scare you into giving up your money and liberties, and letting the aristocracy control your life.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By BIG AL Z on 1/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By mattinva on 1/5/2009 12:11:57 PM , Rating: 2
Will future generations be upset if we limit the spread of electricity in Africa and Asia? If we're serious about reducing carbon, that's a necessary step, as that's the part of the world that's most likely to be bringing new powerplants online.

It's all well and good for us to argue about whether we shoudl be allowed to drive our SUVs, but many of the "solutions" to climate change result in short and long-term suffering. Example: the push to use more ethanol drove up food prices, and was at least partially responsible for food shortages and riots in many parts of the world. Lowering U.S. food production (fertilizer is really bad for the environment) could have a significant negative impact on developing countries.

Or another example: the U.S. has mandated a switch to away from incandescent bulbs. As folks switch to flourscent bulbs, we'll have a serious mercury problem on our hands. What will THAT do to the birds?

I think that's one of the main concerns of most deniers. The unintended consequences of our actions may end up hurting a lot of people.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By JonMoseley on 1/5/2009 1:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
It makes a difference. And you should be honest.

First, we have been working to develop renewable energy since the 1970's, and really since WW II when oil was a national security problem for both the Allies and for the Germans and their excellent German engineers.

What makes you think it will work? After we have spent tens of billions of dollars on this research already for 40+ years, and have not succeeded yet, how can you just assume that renewable energy will ever work? It might. But how can you just GUESS that it will, and fail to develop other forms of energy like oil?

Second, we should most definitely develop forms of energy -- if we can -- that save us from sending hundreds of billions of dollars to countries that hate us every year.

If it is possible to be more energy efficient and/or to use forms of energy that do not depend on foreign powers, we should do so.

However, be HONEST about your goals. Man-made global warming is malarkey. Oil-producing nations who hate us and are sucking $700 billion a year out of our economy are REAL and an easily understandable problem that most Americans agree with and care about.

I believe that $4 a gallon gasoline caused our economy to tank. It sucked huge amounts of money out of people's household income, and businesses, and dragged down the economy. This caused difficulty for people to pay their mortgages.

So if the goal is to not throw away money for no reason, then fine let's do that.

But the goal changes the action plan. It can make a difference in what forms of energy solutions we pursue.

For example, TREES are renewable energy and a renewable resource. If you really want "renewable" energy, you would support the aggressive planting and harvesting of TREES and their use as fuel, including converted to wood chips that can burn very hot in electricity generators.

The most efficient device in the universe for converting solar energy into usable fuel is A TREE.

But if you are mesmerized by myths about global warming, you will run from that solution and will not pursue it.

That is only one example of how the goal changes the action plan.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By dilligafs on 1/5/2009 1:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed but instead of trees, the hemp plant can save the planet. Not marijuana but hemp. Hemp can product petrolium, paper, clothes, food, just about everything we need can be made from hemp.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By dwerb on 1/14/2009 8:26:13 PM , Rating: 2
Algae, not hemp or trees. The only reasonable biofuel if we want to preserve our forests and food.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By BreathingCausesGW on 1/6/2009 3:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oil-producing nations who hate us and are sucking $700 billion a year out of our economy are REAL and an easily understandable problem that most Americans agree with and care about.


just to be clear, we arent actually sending that much. dont get me wrong, i dont want to send ANY money to foreign countries that hate us, but the $700B figure is misleading. It comes from rounding total US petroleum imports for 2007 to 5 billion barrels X $140 per barrel = $700B
We didnt see $140/barrel for more than a couple months, let alone an entire year. You could just as easily say now that at $35/barrel we are spending only $175 billion a year on petroleum imports. Often left out of that number though is that about 30% of that goes to imports from just Canada and Mexico.

quote:
I believe that $4 a gallon gasoline caused our economy to tank. It sucked huge amounts of money out of people's household income, and businesses, and dragged down the economy. This caused difficulty for people to pay their mortgages.


the commodity bubble last summer did indeed put massive strain on our somewhat shaky economy. but come on, you think an extra $20-25 to fill up caused this?? people couldnt afford their mortgages because they never should have gotten the loan to begin with. And when people realized that housing prices wouldnt go up forever it was already too late. housing prices started to drop and people could not afford to pay for a mortgage that was much more expensive than the house was worth, they couldnt get out of it either. They bought the house, even though they couldnt afford it, assuming it could ONLY gain value and be sold later for a profit. They got caught in the trap and foreclosure was just inevitable.
All of this started happening LONG before gasoline hit $4. The seeds of failure were planted more than a decade ago. You can thank the Bush tax cuts that the economy was able to stay propped until now and we didnt feel the full effects of The NASDAQ/tech bubble bursting. see chart: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/images/editimg/issues...


By technohermit on 1/8/2009 8:15:01 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, not really Bush tax cuts, was it? Seemed more like the Fed making fake money. And lowering the interest rates so low that money kept flowing even though it should have dried up long ago to stop the bleeding. When interest rates are low, house prices go up, so the banks still make money on something. When the interest rate next year is 18%, you can sure bet houses will be worth far less than they are now. It allows those that can buy a house to do so. And the banks still make money.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By cshmny on 1/5/2009 5:20:39 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
No matter whether global warming as a human enduced phenomena proves to be right or wrong, do you really think those generations ahead of us are going to be angry that we invested time and energy into using the worlds resources more frugally, adopted renewable energy solutions, became far less polluting and generally more efficient?


Let's not get too ahead of ourselves. Have you ever heard of the Montreal Protocol? That was the initiative that removed CFC's from our appliances in order to save the Ozone Layer. What was the result? LESS EFFICIENT air conditioning units and refrigerators. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE? We burn MORE ELECTRICITY to achieve the same cooling goals (That explains why we have rolling blackouts in the summer months in California now). For ONCE I would like a Global Warming Expert to explain how we came out of 7 Ice Ages before the Industrial Revolution, and how the Earth's Warming and Cooling is NOT tied to SOLAR ACTIVITY which MAN can do NOTHING ABOUT.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By tcsenter on 1/2/2009 2:47:09 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
As the recent "The Climate Wars" program on BBC television showed, this movement seems to be very big-business and politically motivated, rather than scientifically.

Oh that's rich! The pervasive news and media coverage overwhelmingly uncritical or unquestioning of global warming alarmism that the public has been bombarded with on a daily basis for the past 10 years through the programming of top broadcast networks, top cable networks, the most widely-read newspapers and magazines, talk show hosts with massive viewership gleefully inviting Al Gore to use their show as a mouth-piece, and top-billed television dramas that regularly write the talking points of left-leaning advocacy groups into the script almost verbatim, is somehow magically contravened in impact on public perception by the token offering of global warming skepticism by John Stossel aired after midnight every five years.

Give me a freaking break. Global warming skeptics cannot buy, beg, borrow, or steal over an entire year the combined mainstream exposure that global warming proponents receive for free in the course of an average day.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Regs on 1/2/2009 10:00:45 AM , Rating: 3
I fell in love with you just now.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Flatdog on 1/6/2009 11:48:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As the recent "The Climate Wars" program on BBC television showed, this movement seems to be very big-business and politically motivated, rather than scientifically.


It should be noted also that the BBC is in the British Government's pocket, and consequently is biased in favour of promoting AGW. The British Government is using AGW as an excuse to raise what it terms "Green Taxes".


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By partisan007 on 1/9/2009 11:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
Mainstream exposure is not important. What is important is convincing research that persuades the (admittedly probably biased) earth sciences community.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Flatdog on 1/10/2009 4:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
Right. Do you realise how arrogant you come across as by making that sweeping statement?

The issue has been hijacked by politicians in just about every "developed" country on Earth and the UN, and they have their tame "earth sciences communities" in their pockets, because they are in control of who gets the "Mainsteam's" tax money to waste on preserving their mostly worthless jobs.

Vaclav Klaus (EU President)is right - these people are a luxury that we just can't afford.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Regs on 1/2/2009 10:24:16 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I really do not understand the massive anti-global-climate-change agenda and popularist following that manifests itself on sites like this.


It's simple! You take logic and critical thinking; mix it together with a little common sense.

The biggest problem in today's society is that everybody is looking for someone to blame. Blame is not a scientific study or solution. If your car keys are missing, you blame the kids; if your father dies, you blame him or the hospital; if you contract lung cancer, you blame the smokers at the bar in Applebee's. Can you spot the problem with this?

If we continue to use escape-goats, resources will be too constrained to make any real progress. We can't use science to prove blame but the actual cause. Global warming has become a political tool and nothing more, and most of the people that agree to it can be described the same. Unlike most fanatics of global warming, most people on this site do not jump to conclusions, and thank god. Primitive human instinct and psychology is the fight for survival and the illusion of safety. Let's blame everybody else for screwing up our earth, what better way to stay safe.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By RoberTx on 1/3/2009 6:44:45 AM , Rating: 2
You are correct, it's poor media reporting. The mainstream media including the BBC is a very poor source of factual information on any subject. Mark Twain said something to the effect that if you do not read the newspaper you will be uninformed. If you do read it you will be misinformed.

The weather man gives a seven day forecast but has to revise it every day, so it's actually a one day forecast followed by six guesses. Yet he continues to call it a seven day forecast. Climate dynamics are so confusing.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By dbarry76 on 1/5/2009 10:39:39 AM , Rating: 2
"As the recent "The Climate Wars" program on BBC television showed, this movement seems to be very big-business and politically motivated, rather than scientifically."

That's rich. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. my friend. Global warming hysteria is ALL about big business and politics! No global warming means no funding for scientists. No funding means no jobs and raises. Those who create the most alarming "predictions" are the ones who get the most funding. Al Gore gets hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech to talk about this garbage. His book and DVD is still pulling in millions of dollars. "Green" solutions are the hottest trend in the marketplace. The UN climate panel is made up of politicians - not scientists. And politicians cater to the fears of the public no matter how absurd they may be. (Just look at what they do when a single peanut is found on a school bus these days!)

Global warming is more about big-business and politically motivated than the anti-global warming crowd will ever be.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Sagath on 1/1/09, Rating: 0
RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By foolsgambit11 on 1/1/2009 7:41:30 PM , Rating: 4
The problem with Asher's method here is that he lumps all sea ice together, then makes insinuations about Arctic sea ice levels from that data. Of course, there's plenty of data on Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice separately. That Arctic sea ice data still shows:

a. a long term downward trend in sea ice extent.
b. a current sea ice extent below the 1979-2000 average.
c. a current sea ice extent below the 2007 level.
d. a November sea ice extent 600,000 km^2 below the 1979 level. (The December sea ice levels aren't out yet. Next week, I think.)

http://www.nsidc.org/

Additionally, yes, I'd say this data is 'cherry picked'. Considering that, while the current global sea ice extent is roughly equal to 1979 levels, it's pretty clear that 1979 was a 'low' year. After all, this years end of year anomaly is clearly worse than 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2007. It's roughly even with 1979, 1983, 1985, 1992, 1998, and 2004. It's better than 1996, 1999, 2001, 2005, and 2006. So in 30 years, this year is better than 5 years (all pretty recent), even with 6 years (pretty randomly scattered through the 30 years), and worse than the other 18 years.

Again, this is global sea ice. If we look at Arctic only, the picture is much worse. But the stabilizing influence of the Antarctic sea ice mass (which is 60% or so of total sea ice, and has been increasing in size by about .04%/year) makes this instantaneous picture of sea ice extent worse than only 60% of the previous 29 years.

Arctic sea ice has been growing at a below average rate, which means that the reduction in anomaly is due to a slower-than-normal melt in the Antarctic. The story should have been, "Unusually Slow Melting Season in Antarctic So Far".


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Goty on 1/1/2009 7:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
Huh, looking at the graph, 1979 doesn't appear to be "low" in comparison to the next two decades at all.


By foolsgambit11 on 1/1/2009 8:10:02 PM , Rating: 3
1979 as a whole isn't that low - but you have to look at the exact data point masher has picked out (hence, the 'cherry picking' complaint) - the end of 1979. That data point, just like this years similar data point, is lower than 60% of the other years on the table. It's lower than 80% of the 80's, and 60% of the 90's.


By psychobriggsy on 1/1/2009 10:36:52 PM , Rating: 4
Thank you for your useful post that had far better analysis of the data points that were abused in this blog post. I doubt that the post will be changed to accommodate these facts of course, but that's what happens when the original poster has an agenda, rather than presenting the facts with non-biased analysis.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By ddarko on 1/2/2009 12:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, this is Asher's repeated pattern: pick out one small fact, highlight it, twist it into a conclusion that isn't supported by that fact, then ignore all the other facts.

So this post is only his latest example: he says Arctic ice "saw a substantial recovery" in 2008. What a load of bull: check out this chart on the Wall Street Journal - you know, that bastion of liberal pinko communists - that demonstrates graphically the enormous loss of ice coverage in the Arctic over the last 30 years:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123085070980447477...

That chart shows an undeniable trend of massive ice loss which NEVER returns. None of that Arctice ice has "recovered." How does one look at that chart and says Arctic ice shows "substantial recovery"? By ignoring the overall picture and making unfounded claims, that's how. Of course, Asher's tried-and-true tactic is always point to one data in isolation, draw irrational conclusions from it and generalize to the point where all the other contradictory facts are ignored.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Reclaimer77 on 1/3/2009 12:23:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Yup, this is Asher's repeated pattern: pick out one small fact, highlight it, twist it into a conclusion that isn't supported by that fact, then ignore all the other facts.


Yeah because we know the pro global warming side NEVER does that....

*cough*


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By danrien on 1/3/2009 6:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
ahhh.... two wrongs make a right.


By Reclaimer77 on 1/3/2009 10:00:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ahhh.... two wrongs make a right.


Group 1 " Man it was 2 degrees hotter this year in my state than last year, global warming is real. "

Group 2 " Based on hundreds of years of data, we can see there is no correlation between man made emissions and polar ice melting "

Group 1 " HEY ! YOUR CHERRY PICKING !!! "

/shrug.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By ddarko on 1/3/2009 10:22:56 PM , Rating: 3
If you're implying my post did that, demonstrate it.

What I did in my initial post above was point to a graph published by the conservative Wall Street Journal that demonstrate the ENORMOUS loss of Arctic ice over the last several decades. On what basis did Asher make the claim that Arctic ice has "substantially recovered" in 2008? By pointing to the tiny amount of ice that returned in the Alaska area and saying "See, Arctic ice is coming back," as if Alaska = Arctic when in fact, Alaska ice represents only a tiny portion of total Arctic ice and the rest of the Arctic region saw no return of ice. The WSJ graph makes that abundantly and undeniably clear. Here it is again, at the bottom of the page:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123085070980447477...

Of course, here's an example of Asher's dishonesty. After initially asserting in his original blog post that "Arctic ice has substantially recovered in 2008," he has since changed his blog, removing his remark without any note or retraction. Yup, altering your copy after you post it without making a note is the highest journalistic practice (heavy sarcasm). Caught in his flat-out lie, he's now resorting to trying to hide his paper trail.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By ddarko on 1/3/2009 10:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
And here's my retraction: I completely misread the blog post and now see Asher did NOT change his blog post. His "Arctic ice has substantially recovered in 2008" is still there. It is still wrong but that's not the point: I was wrong to say he had removed it when he did not.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By ipay on 1/8/2009 7:41:20 AM , Rating: 2
Kudos to you for admitting the error.

However, your post does highlight Asher's disconnect from reality. And it's not an innocent mistake that he's making - he knows he's lying by omission and cherry-picking, but he knows the value of "a lie told often enough becomes truth", AKA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

Asher finds graphs or quotes that he can misrepresent without it being obvious to the average lay person, and certainly not obvious to those who *want* to be lied to.

And now DT is largely populated by frightened right wingers who *want* someone, even a nobody like Asher, to tell them climate change is not happening and it's all going to be alright.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By cshmny on 1/5/2009 5:32:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I did in my initial post above was point to a graph published by the conservative Wall Street Journal


The Wall Street Journal is not conservative except for Op-Ed pieces.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By azcowboy on 1/5/2009 12:47:16 PM , Rating: 2
You can't define a trend out of 4 data points----- unless, of course, you are a member of the Church of Global Warming Now. Remember, the glaciers at Glacier National Park have been receeding since 1881. Manmade? I think not substantially.
Someone made the comment that it makes sense to do environmentally conscious things in defining our lifestyle. But to lurch into high cost---monetarilly and human life---programs at the behest of the likes of Al Gore is just silly.

Show me some good data. There's too much ignoring of data that doesn't agree with personal beliefs---maybe on both sides.


By mrhawkeyes on 1/6/2009 5:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
At least read(and comprehend) the previous sentence, ddarko: Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead, the Arctic ice saw a substantial recovery.

The saw a substantial recovery commeny was directed at the possibility of the North Pole melting entirely in 2008, not historic arctic ice levels. The first sentence of the article sums it all up with mention of currentglobal sea ice levels being equal with 1979 levels. Can you point out something wrong with that?


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By ocbizlaw on 1/5/2009 4:34:31 PM , Rating: 3
Who cares? Sea levels are hundreds of feet below where they were millions of years before humans existed. Why do we insist that where they are now is the correct level? Why aren't we worried that they are too low in context of geological time?


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By FaFbFp on 1/5/2009 4:55:36 PM , Rating: 3
It's called S-U-B-L-I-M-A-T-I-O-N...The process whereby a solid returns to a gas without going through the liquid stage. In the case of the Arctic/Antarctic icecaps it's a result of sunspot and solar wind activity of which we are currently reaching the end of the 40 year cycle. Unfortunately, our current crop of public-educated scientific geniuses haven't yet reached the point in their Einstein Readers that discusses critical thinking. The whole thing with Global Warming (or Climate Change, if you want to call it that) is a game of money, grants, and alarmism.


RE: Seals are in trouble now...
By Ringold on 1/1/2009 9:00:30 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Irresponsible people like this really shouldn't be allowed to publish their c**p.


How times change. Are you aware that people like you, who would call themselves liberal, once fought, protested, and died for the right of a free press and free society such that people could express theirs views, regardless of if they were "right" or "wrong" views? People still pursue this in benighted parts of the world, and it still often cost them their lives. Google for articles referencing murdered Russian journalists, or google for articles discussing Mugabe's men beating and murdering supporters of rival parties. I do believe it's illegal to speak negatively in public of the monarch in a couple South East Asian nations as well.

I swear, guys like this are the most insidious threat to modern civilization that exists today. Not nuclear weapons; you can destroy hundreds of cities and hundreds more remain. Definitely not global warming; individual liberty isn't imperiled by weather phenomenon, only other men can imperil that. Just these guys, advocating from positions that are equivalent to rolling back the past several hundred years of modern human social development.

Stating that people shouldn't be allowed in society to write and broadcast what they please is functionally the same as having a state controlled media, similar to the USSR and China, because who decides whats "irresponsible" and what is not? Why not advocate for the dissolution of Congress and restoration of monarchy? King Albert Gore the First, Keeper of the Green, Merchant of the Carbon Credit, Defender of Frog.