"It's an unfortunate sign that climate change is coming rapidly to the Arctic and that we really need to address the issue of global warming on a national level," said Christopher Krenz, Arctic project manager for Oceana.
"This is not surprising but it is alarming," said Deborah Williams, a former Interior Department special assistant for Alaska. "This was a relatively cool summer, and to have ice decrease to the second lowest minimum on record demonstrates that global warming's ongoing impact is profound."
Krenz said the announcement Tuesday showed that last year's record low sea ice was not an anomaly. As ice covers fewer square miles of ocean, he said, warming will accelerate.
"It's going to accelerate climate change through changes in the reflectance of the Arctic," he said. "It's going from bright ice to a much darker ocean."
More square miles of dark ocean will absorb more heat. More warmth will accelerate melting of Arctic permafrost, allowing organic matter now frozen to melt and add to the greenhouse gas problem, he said.
"That allows for the breakdown of that by bacteria and other organisms that release CO2 or methane, depending on how the breakdown occurs," he said.
The effects faced by people in the Arctic eventually will reach the rest of the nation and the world, he warned.
This goes to show what I have said all along - a "cool summer" in one locale or another, even very close to the arctic, does not mean anything at all in regard to Global climate.
Summer sea ice last year shrunk to about 1.65 million square miles, nearly 40 percent less than the long-term average between 1979 and 2000. Most climate modelers predict a continued downward spiral, possibly with an Arctic Ocean that's ice free during summer months by 2030 or sooner.
That will be just about perfect timing to develop all the off shore oil in the Arctic...Timing is everything you know? If they are so worried about polar bears, ship them to the Antarctic. They can eat Penguins instead of seals. Be a nice change of diet. Seal tastes horrible, and smells worse.
If the ice is actually at a low level, that means ice will increase as the normal oscillation of the total ice volume occurs in the future. This would be a good time to invest in oceanfront property and like areas.
Wow, what happened on the oil market today? When I woke up oil was rising due to the nervous Nellys worried about some tropical storm. Now I see it has fallen more than $2.50. It turned around $4-$5. Very unusual.
Did Larsb give up his bid to boost oil prices and sell short? :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Will the hue cry be to burn more coal to warm the earth?
Drop in solar activity has potential effect for climate on earth.
The sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.
The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity – which determines the number of sunspots -- is an influencing factor for climate on earth.
In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion.
The journal ultimately rejected the paper as being too controversial.
The paper's lead author, William Livingston, tells DailyTech that, while the refusal may have been justified at the time, recent data fits his theory well. He says he will be "secretly pleased" if his predictions come to pass.
But will the rest of us? In the past 1000 years, three previous such events -- the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer Minimums, have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called a "mini ice age". For a society dependent on agriculture, cold is more damaging than heat. The growing season shortens, yields drop, and the occurrence of crop-destroying frosts increases.
When did my car and truck cause "climate change" instead of "global warming"? Does that mean if the climate becomes colder and the polar ice increases, my vehicles still caused it?
As far as Gore being smart, he is the head of some hefty hedge funds utilizing "green" investment strategies. These technologies would not be economically viable because solar, ethanol, wind & biofuel can not produce large amounts of energy as cheaply or reliably as fossil fuels or nuclear. Do a few focus groups to find out people feel guilty about hurting the environment, find a few cllmatologists who need grants to work up some computer weather models predicting doom (so esoteric the average Joe can't dispute it without a PHD) in the climate (far enough in the future no one will remember) and get the dumb-masses to have government force the use of these green technologies and wooola profitable hedge funds. This is pure genius really.
Cmiles97 is not paid by BIG OIL but wishes he was.
"..."climate change" instead of "global warming"..."
It happened when the GW scam artists got worried the climate would cool off and they would be busted. Now they can say "climate change" no matter which way it goes.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Yes I think they are trying to find an iconic catch-all phrase or WORD along the lines that motherhood, god and apple pie conveys. It can mean anything and everything and EVERYONE nods when you say the code word/phrase. :lemon:
So looks like the warming trend, at least in our hemisphere in the last decade, is unequivocal now. Maybe that was the peak of the warming - only time will tell....
Past decade warmest in 1,300 years Tom Spears , Canwest News Service Published: Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Another week, another study showing Earth is warming up - with a twist.
This time researchers say there's firmer confirmation for their theory that the past decade has been warmer than anything in the previous 1,300 years. In fact, that might stretch to 1,700 years, they say - depending on whether they rely on the controversial evidence of tree rings showing fast and slow growth as the climate varied centuries ago.
The new study, headed by chief researcher Michael Mann of Penn State University, shows what many previous models have shown. Today's climate is about 0.9 degrees warmer than the long-term average for a period of more than 1,000 years.
"We were able to show you can get a reconstruction back more than 1,000 years without tree ring data at all, and you still come to that conclusion" that today's climate is the warmest, he said. "We feel we've removed the asterisk," or the mark of doubt beside earlier models of past climates.
The study is published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The evidence is firmer for the Northern hemisphere, he noted. Southern oceans have fewer useful corrals and less land than the north.
The uncertainties become greater as the model reaches back more than 1,700 years, he said. "You can't conclude with certainty that the past couldn't have been warmer than the present."
It's a Win-win for me larsb. If I'm right I win the argument; if you're right I also win - in getting to use a few less gal. of heating oil each year, and having a longer, nicer summer.
Indeed that is funny how true it is. The "real" places to live in terms of global warming is concerned are places that benefit from global warming!? Most housing in San Francisco, CA for example do NOT have air conditioning and most very rarely use the furnances during winter. Indeed the only buildings that do HAVE air conditioning (AKA energy consumptive) are the high rise buildings(homes and offices) which oxymornically the environmentalists advocate/recommend which "enable densification" :lemon:
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. Blaise Pascal
It was Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion. That was in a speech in 2003, but the world has moved on apace since then and adherents of the creed now have a firm grip on the world at large.
Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man.
The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages:
1. It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones. 2. The climate is always changing, so they must be right.
Heard Obama making a GW speech in Scranton. He said the oceans are warming. That is not what scientists are saying. He may have old data that Al Gore gave him. He has a plan to cut GW. Did not give any particulars. Probably did not want to scare us.
Many climate scientists have linked stronger storms to rising sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic and elsewhere, under the so-called heat engine theory: because warm tropical cyclones feed on warm water, the warmer the water, the more intense the storm.
U.S. researchers looked at 26 years of satellite data, from 1981 to 2006, and determined that the strongest storms got stronger as a result of increasing ocean warmth.
"It's almost like a survival-of-the-fittest argument," said Elsner, whose study is published in the journal Nature. Overall, tropical waters that breed cyclones have warmed by about 0.6 degrees F since 1981.
See why climate change is so hard to pin down? Everywhere you look, there are scientists arguing.
Another story from TODAY saying basically similar stuff:
You cannot compare surface temperatures in a few locations to the 3000 sensors placed around the globe. They claim No rise since the system was turned up.
Brrr! Ocean water temps take a dip
REHOBOTH BEACH -- Beachgoers and fishermen alike are noticing the unseasonably cold water temperatures that weather professionals attribute to a phenomena known as upwelling.
"Current water temperatures are very close to their July normal values of 73 F. However, a week ago water temperatures were 10 degrees colder," said Meteorologist Gary Szatkowski of the National Weather Service.
"South to southwest surface winds during the summer actually push the warm water temperatures at the surface offshore. Colder water from deeper in the ocean comes to the surface, resulting in cold water temperatures in the surf zone," he said.
And people are definitely feeling the chill.
"We have had a lot of people come up and ask if this is how the temperature normally is, and of course, we tell them no," said Lt. Mark Reynolds of the Rehoboth Beach Patrol. "The water got warmer for a few days -- went up to 71 or 72 F -- but now it's back down."
No sunspots means a mini ice age is coming. Better get out the long johns. The Hummingbird migration is about 2 weeks early this year. I went from a gallon and a half per day last week to just about half a gallon yesterday. They are usually just coming in now. Lots of bees, not sure what that means.
That's what I've been saying for a long time. These folks have rejected traditional religion in favor of "Gia" worship. Gia as I understand it is a "mother earth" figure and elevates the planet and all it's complex weather, climate and geophysical processes to god status.
This means that if you disrespect god (Gia) she will get angry and smite you (make the seas rise or cause a hurricane).
Central to this belief is a fear of modern technology and a distrust of the "paternalism" of science and traditional societal mores.
The natural outgrowth of this movement would for us all to be running naked in the woods, breeding like animals and dying of typhoid and infections. In short a "natural" lifestyle.
I for one would prefer not to join that church.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Here is another leader that sees it as a religious movement.
The Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has angered green campaigners by describing their view on climate change as a "hysterical psuedo-religion".
In an article in the News Letter, Mr Wilson said he believed it occurred naturally and was not man-made.
"Resources should be used to adapt to the consequences of climate change, rather than King Canute-style vainly trying to stop it," said the minister.
Mr Wilson said he refused to "blindly accept" the need to make significant changes to the economy to stop climate change.
"The tactic used by the "green gang" is to label anyone who dares disagree with their view of climate change as some kind of nutcase who denies scientific fact," he said.
The minister said he accepted climate change can occur, but does not believe the cause has been identified.
"Reasoned debate must replace the scaremongering of the green climate alarmists."
As you have said many times, this is nothing but an isolated incident. Not worthy of even mentioning in the long term scheme of things. You must be scraping the bottom of the barrel. :P
I just wanted to counter all Gary's "the ocean is freezing the ocean is freezing !!!" posts.
Very Funny. I think we have the classic "Chicken or the Egg" debate. At least more of the World's leaders are coming to the conclusion that CC is NOT man made. Or if it is there is nothing short of moving everyone into a cave that will change anything.
Too bad even I as a lowly citizen with only a little degree can find the multiple uncontrolled variables in this "experiment." Adaptation of the plants, a la Darwin.
I read another story just now in the paper that says the black holes, if created, will be smaller than sub-atomic protons and will quickly vanish.
Let's hope, anyway.
This reminds me of the worries of some on the Manhattan Project who worried that splitting the atom would ignite the atmosphere across the world and catch the entire planet on fire.
I'm sure PETA will be all over this one. Lets see, I shouldn't drive my car, and now I shouldn't eat meat. I've got an idea, lets just stop breathing, that will put an end to human contribution to GW once and for all.
"Her death near Sallanches, Savoy, in 1934 was from aplastic anemia, almost certainly due to exposure to radiation. The damaging effects of ionizing radiation were then not yet known, and much of her work had been carried out in a shed with no safety measures. She had carried test tubes containing radioactive isotopes in her pocket and stored them in her desk drawer, remarking on the pretty blue-green light that the substances gave off in the dark."
I believe she was acclaimed to be a brilliant scientist, and won at least 1 Nobel prize.
I have little faith in scienists until they Prove their theories and understand. People are not genetically smarter today than people in the last centuries who believed the Earth is flat, witchcraft was controlling events, there's Gods in the volcanoes, or didn't understand there wer galaxies outside the Milky Way. Scientists have many erroneous theories, and I suggest everyone demand Proof, and not act on theories which are frequently wrong.
I suggest everyone demand Proof, and not act on theories which are frequently wrong.
Especially when acting on theories will seriously damage the economy. Such as adding huge surcharges to electric bills to pay for Pie in the sky generation systems.
And I also suggest tthat we demand proof from our political leaders. I'm not bashing Bush, but I will use him as a current example.
The American public and most of our brightest and smartest politicians, analysts and advisers, all went along with the theory of WMD in Iraq. What if 2 years from now a similar case is evolved by whomever's in power that Iran has nuclear weapons and is preparing to use them, and we must act now. Do we demand proof or just go along again on some likely theory?
What say you Larsb - just believe the experts' theory? Take some action just in case? even if it throws us into a global decline? Look throughout history and see how many supposedly brilliant people were foolish. well I've learned from history and I'm not repeating the mistakes of the past. Demand proof and stop following these self-promoting "leaders" because they are charismatic or hold some high-office. Use analytical-logical thinking, not "theories" "maybe" "possible" and other doom-sayers theories of the day.
"But in the case of Iran, I don't think we will be required to do anything at all because I think Israel will take care of the situation."
Now that really scares me. Who will take care of the Israeli situation ? If the Middle East is to have any sort of peace then Israel will have to learn to live with its neighbours - but who will teach it ? Not the U.N. as the Israeli's just ignore inconvenient U.N. Resolutions and no-one seems to mind. Never mind Russia in Georgia; I see Israel as being the worst potential threat to peace.
Sorry, nothing to do with Global Warming but couldn't just let such a flippant comment pass unremarked.
... we get reprimanded. The point is that in your life you demand proof. Don't go running off feverently behind someone waving a flag or claiming to know how the world functions (science) based on theories, suspicions, hunches, gut-feelings ... at least on important issues.
You can look through history and find time-after-time how foolish even our greatest ancestors were. I don't see any evidence that we have made any sort of genetic leap beyond theis level of ignorance. I see these leaders and scientists having millions of theories and plans, of which a few contain the truth. As a general rule I don't follow any of them, until they are 99.99% agreed to and proven. GW is about 75% proven, and man-made GW is about 50% proven.
For all I know CO2 emissions may be the only thing keeping us from slipping into another Ice Age. Going out in the sun everyday, I have to vote that sun activitiy is THE main influence on our climate.
Can this be attributed to electrical driven Cable Cars? :shades: You can almost spot a tourist from a .25 to .5 mile off, shorts, tank top, sunglasses in fog, wind blown hair, freezing to death in the HEAT of summer!!! :shades:
Or these CERN scientists, like Madame Marie Curie, don't know all the facts, and may be in for a surprise.
It has been my experience that many, if not most, scientists, especially research scientists, don't have much interest in explaining or investigating things that are known. Certainly that which is known influences how they proceed, but it is things unknown that drives their passions. Surprises and unexpected outcomes serve to fuel the fire more than anything else, perhaps even more so if the surprise or unexpected outcome is of a tragic or unfortunate nature.
It is misguided to condemn those from previous generations when considering them through the lens of more current knowledge. I am not exactly sure what "genetically smarter" is supposed to mean, but you are correct in that previous generations were not less smart than we are today. Our body of knowledge has grown. It seems disingenuous to belittle someone who came before us because they did not have the same body of knowledge to work with. What happened to Curie was unfortunate. At the time she had no knowledge that what she was doing was dangerous. Ultimately her death served to shed some light on the dangers of working with radioactive materials. Pretty high price she paid, but if you're comfortable dancing on her grave, have fun.
I have little faith in scienists[sic] until they Prove their theories
I'm afraid you will be waiting quite a while to find more faith. Scientists aren't in the business of proving much of anything, or at least they shouldn't be. They observe, explain, and describe, and most would be willing to provide evidence that either supports or does not support a given theory though. There should be sufficient supporting evidence before something is even considered to be a theory. It remains a theory until there is sufficient evidence to undermine that status. Every theory could possibly be wrong. That is one of the reasons they are so useful, and not indicative of frivolity..
It seems disingenuous to belittle someone who came before us because they did not have the same body of knowledge to work with.
The point is to show that even the most gifted and brilliant of a time can be, and frequently are wrong, when they don't have most of the facts. I put climatologists in the same boat at this point. Making models and playing with the effect of hundreds of variables is not very convincing.
Scientists aren't in the business of proving much of anything, or at least they shouldn't be.
Wow! That is an alarmingly incorrect view. I would think you talking about philosophy, not science!
Not a new story, but a new study "proving" it is out........and already has other scientists challenging the findings...................(long sigh)
It could be a sign of just how traumatic 2005's Hurricane Katrina was that when Hurricane Gustav failed last week to fully pulverize New Orleans, it was news. The fallout from Gustav was relatively limited, but it was still a major storm, with maximum sustained winds of 110 m.p.h. when it made landfall in Louisiana — strong enough to cause an estimated $20 billion in damages. And Gustav won't be the last this season. Hurricane Hanna gathered strength in the Atlantic last week, and Ike is swirling not far behind, headed now for the U.S. That's just in the Atlantic, this month. Last May in the Pacific, the massive Cyclone Nargis killed an estimated 100,000 people in the Southeast Asian nation of Burma.
All these hurricanes in such a short period of time begs the question: are storms getting stronger, and if so, what's causing it? According to a new paper in Nature, the answer is yes — and global warming seems to be the culprit. Researchers led by James Elsner, a meteorologist at Florida State University, analyzed satellite-derived data of tropical storms since 1981 and found that the maximum wind speeds of the strongest storms have increased significantly in the years since, with the most notable increases found in the North Atlantic and the northern Indian oceans. They believe that rising ocean temperatures — due to global warming — are one of the main causes behind that change. "There is a robust signal behind the shift to more intense hurricanes," says Judith Curry, chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
It is premature to conclude that human activity--and particularly greenhouse warming--has already had a discernible impact on Atlantic hurricane activity.
Similarly, efforts to project future levels of Atlantic hurricane activity using observed SST-PDI statistical relations derived from recent decades should be treated as highly speculative at this stage. While current models do project that greenhouse warming will likely cause increased hurricane intensities and rainfall rates globally in the future, the unambiguous detection of such changes and attribution of the changes to greenhouse warming has not yet been accomplished.
And this info was presented before the current study which I posted. We ALL know that the LATEST data is always the BEST data - Right?
The point is to show that even the most gifted and brilliant of a time can be, and frequently are wrong, when they don't have most of the facts
Fair enough. If you meant no disparagement of Curie, I apologize. I still have the impression that you see this as a weakness in science. It is not.
Wow! That is an alarmingly incorrect view. I would think you talking about philosophy, not science!
While I do state a philosophical position, I am speaking of science, not philosophy. We have become lazy in our use of words like proof, prove, and proving. Many scientists will say it is best for them to avoid using these words in scientific discussions. Unfortunately, many scientists have also become lazy with them as well, especially when addressing an emotionally charged, highly politicized issue like anthropogenic global warming. The concept of proof is simply not a scientific idea. It is useful in courtrooms and liquor stores, but it should have no place in science.
When a scientist makes the conclusive statement "Human activity is causing global warming," or more directly related to the topic, "Automobile emissions are a major contributor to human caused global warming," we might respond "Prove it." Now, there is nothing particularly wrong with that exchange, but the scientist should accept that is not really his job to prove anything. He should be expected to present his evidence (his observations and data and facts) that supports his conclusion and anticipate that others may present evidence that may refute his conclusion. Faced with refuting evidence, the scientist should then be expected to go back to work motivated by the refuting evidence. Whether or not anyone actually ends up convinced of anything through all of this should not be of any concern to the scientist.
Maddening isn't it?
BTW - models, graphs, representational calculations and such are not evidence. They are analytical tools and means of presentation only, but not the evidence itself.
The concept of proof is simply not a scientific idea.
So if scientists then neglect or as you say - isn't their job - then that leaves some administrator, politician or other "leader" who is surely not as expert to make decisions. Do you think that is good? In this case don't you think the non-scientist Al Gore has made a decision that the world needs to act to stop the proven anthropogenic GW?
I kinda like my scientists like those that worked on the Manhattan Project. A lot of theory and work, and then the final proof at Los Alomos. Or do you consider those folks engineers and not "pure" scientists? I also like my scientists to prove that drugs work, and wish that the FDA did a better job of requiring testing and proof.
So if scientists then neglect or as you say - isn't their job - then that leaves some administrator, politician or other "leader" who is surely not as expert to make decisions.
Scientists should be diligent and conscientious in their work. What you describe here is pretty much the system we have. Someone gathers the evidence and presents it (someone else may do the presentation), and then someone else makes decisions based on that evidence.
Do you think that is good?
I think it is important to maintain these distinctions. A detective gathers evidence, and should do so without regard to guilt or innocence. Attorneys then present the evidence at trial, and they do so motivated by the outcome they desire. They will intentionally focus on evidence that supports their case and downplay or dismiss evidence that does not support their case. The decision is left to a judge or jury, hopefully following the weight of the evidence that has been presented and not the slick presentation. It is an imperfect system, but yes, I think it is a good one. A scientist should gather evidence. If he does so with the desire to prove something, that is the situation more conducive to being negligent. It is unfortunate that much of the activity within the scientific community is becoming more polemic.
Al Gore makes a very slick presentation. Lots of drama and flash. Thus far, the evidence he presents has not convinced me. There simply is too much refuting evidence that he likes to ignore, and he plays a little fast and loose with evidence that supports his position. (so maybe I am swayed a bit by his presentation)
It took me a while to get my head around this "proof" thing too. Here is what one scientists has to say about it. Different issue, but a decent explanation of the concept of proof and science. Why Scientists Can Never Prove That Biotech Crops Are Safe
Here is another essay that presents a more common idea of proof. The writer does identify it correctly though as An Intentionally Untechnical Essay. He makes some very good points, but I am one who likes to still think that words mean what they mean, not what I want them to mean. I'm comfortable with the charge of being pedantic.
The decision is left to a judge or jury, hopefully following the weight of the evidence that has been presented and not the slick presentation.
Well people are not sequestered and listening to days of testimony or data on GW. They are getting the 3 min. or 1 paragraph item in the news, many of which are sensationalized to createviewer or reader interest. And these people who select what to cover are not experts in the GW field.
Different issue, but a decent explanation of the concept of proof and science. Yes you can not prove anything 100%, but most people consider that you can prove theories - meaning proved to a high degree of probability. So yes if you or scientists in general want to use semantics nothing can ever be proved. But it is pretty sad commentary if science takes the stance that though they understand something the most, they want to be advisers, and not lead in the decision.
If you had 50% of the scientists in the world had theories claiming GW, and 50% claiming Global Cooling, and neither could prove their case, what should our leaders do? Maybe you hope our leaders see a vision in a dream? Or simply flip a coin?
A scientist should gather evidence.
And someone like Al Gore or GeorgeW. who have no science background should decide what to do with it? That's like having a master chef go shopping in NYC for a day to get ingredients, and having a 16yr. old burger-flipper at McD's prepare dinner.
Attorneys then present the evidence at trial, and they do so motivated by the outcome they desire. They will intentionally focus on evidence that supports their case and downplay or dismiss evidence that does not support their case.
In the case of man made Global Warming or now called Climate Change to take into account the cooling trend, we only hear from the attorneys for the Prosecution. The Media give them all the air time and dismiss the attorneys for the Defense as kook fringe. When in reality the opposite is true.
It would be nice if there was a bit more balance. I am especially disturbed by the lack of reasoned debate and discussion - from both sides really. That anthropogenic global warming (or climate change) is an indisputable fact is the mainstream position at this point. There are certainly those who challenge this, but it is a hell of a lot harder to swim upstream than to go with the flow.
It's nothing new, you know. We used to take those with the opposing view and burn them at the stake or cut off their heads. Now we censor them through firing or cutting off their funding. Hypocrisy and public humiliation are often common elements of both approaches.
Comments
"It's an unfortunate sign that climate change is coming rapidly to the Arctic and that we really need to address the issue of global warming on a national level," said Christopher Krenz, Arctic project manager for Oceana.
"This is not surprising but it is alarming," said Deborah Williams, a former Interior Department special assistant for Alaska. "This was a relatively cool summer, and to have ice decrease to the second lowest minimum on record demonstrates that global warming's ongoing impact is profound."
Krenz said the announcement Tuesday showed that last year's record low sea ice was not an anomaly. As ice covers fewer square miles of ocean, he said, warming will accelerate.
"It's going to accelerate climate change through changes in the reflectance of the Arctic," he said. "It's going from bright ice to a much darker ocean."
More square miles of dark ocean will absorb more heat. More warmth will accelerate melting of Arctic permafrost, allowing organic matter now frozen to melt and add to the greenhouse gas problem, he said.
"That allows for the breakdown of that by bacteria and other organisms that release CO2 or methane, depending on how the breakdown occurs," he said.
The effects faced by people in the Arctic eventually will reach the rest of the nation and the world, he warned.
This goes to show what I have said all along - a "cool summer" in one locale or another, even very close to the arctic, does not mean anything at all in regard to Global climate.
That will be just about perfect timing to develop all the off shore oil in the Arctic...Timing is everything you know? If they are so worried about polar bears, ship them to the Antarctic. They can eat Penguins instead of seals. Be a nice change of diet. Seal tastes horrible, and smells worse.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I love it. They take averages starting in an unusually cool period (remember the winters in the late 70s?) and then call it "long term".
For all you know, if you took averages from a warm period (say 1930 to 1960) it might look as if the ice shield now was 40% BIGGER.
Dishonest science sucks. :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I knew I could wake you guys up with that one !!!!
Did Larsb give up his bid to boost oil prices and sell short? :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Drop in solar activity has potential effect for climate on earth.
The sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.
The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity – which determines the number of sunspots -- is an influencing factor for climate on earth.
In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion.
The journal ultimately rejected the paper as being too controversial.
The paper's lead author, William Livingston, tells DailyTech that, while the refusal may have been justified at the time, recent data fits his theory well. He says he will be "secretly pleased" if his predictions come to pass.
But will the rest of us? In the past 1000 years, three previous such events -- the Dalton, Maunder, and Spörer Minimums, have all led to rapid cooling. One was large enough to be called a "mini ice age". For a society dependent on agriculture, cold is more damaging than heat. The growing season shortens, yields drop, and the occurrence of crop-destroying frosts increases.
http://www.dailytech.com/Sun+Makes+History+First+Spotless+Month+in+a+Century/art- icle12823.htm
As far as Gore being smart, he is the head of some hefty hedge funds utilizing "green" investment strategies. These technologies would not be economically viable because solar, ethanol, wind & biofuel can not produce large amounts of energy as cheaply or reliably as fossil fuels or nuclear. Do a few focus groups to find out people feel guilty about hurting the environment, find a few cllmatologists who need grants to work up some computer weather models predicting doom (so esoteric the average Joe can't dispute it without a PHD) in the climate (far enough in the future no one will remember) and get the dumb-masses to have government force the use of these green technologies and wooola profitable hedge funds. This is pure genius really.
Cmiles97 is not paid by BIG OIL but wishes he was.
link title
link title
It happened when the GW scam artists got worried the climate would cool off and they would be busted. Now they can say "climate change" no matter which way it goes.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I like to think of it as:
Caught Cheating!
link title
So looks like the warming trend, at least in our hemisphere in the last decade, is unequivocal now. Maybe that was the peak of the warming - only time will tell....
Past decade warmest in 1,300 years
Tom Spears , Canwest News Service
Published: Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Another week, another study showing Earth is warming up - with a twist.
This time researchers say there's firmer confirmation for their theory that the past decade has been warmer than anything in the previous 1,300 years. In fact, that might stretch to 1,700 years, they say - depending on whether they rely on the controversial evidence of tree rings showing fast and slow growth as the climate varied centuries ago.
The new study, headed by chief researcher Michael Mann of Penn State University, shows what many previous models have shown. Today's climate is about 0.9 degrees warmer than the long-term average for a period of more than 1,000 years.
"We were able to show you can get a reconstruction back more than 1,000 years without tree ring data at all, and you still come to that conclusion" that today's climate is the warmest, he said. "We feel we've removed the asterisk," or the mark of doubt beside earlier models of past climates.
The study is published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The evidence is firmer for the Northern hemisphere, he noted. Southern oceans have fewer useful corrals and less land than the north.
The uncertainties become greater as the model reaches back more than 1,700 years, he said. "You can't conclude with certainty that the past couldn't have been warmer than the present."
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
(you guys are GOOD !!!)
Blaise Pascal
It was Michael Crichton who first prominently identified environmentalism as a religion. That was in a speech in 2003, but the world has moved on apace since then and adherents of the creed now have a firm grip on the world at large.
Global Warming has become the core belief in a new eco-theology. The term is used as shorthand for anthropogenic (or man made) global warming. It is closely related to other modern belief systems, such as political correctness, chemophobia and various other forms of scaremongering, but it represents the vanguard in the assault on scientific man.
The activists now prefer to call it “climate change”. This gives them two advantages:
1. It allows them to seize as “evidence” the inevitable occurrences of unusually cold weather as well as warm ones.
2. The climate is always changing, so they must be right.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm
Heard Obama making a GW speech in Scranton. He said the oceans are warming. That is not what scientists are saying. He may have old data that Al Gore gave him. He has a plan to cut GW. Did not give any particulars. Probably did not want to scare us.
Or, maybe, he just read this news article from Wednesday Sept 3, 2008:
Oceans Warming
Many climate scientists have linked stronger storms to rising sea surface temperatures in the North Atlantic and elsewhere, under the so-called heat engine theory: because warm tropical cyclones feed on warm water, the warmer the water, the more intense the storm.
U.S. researchers looked at 26 years of satellite data, from 1981 to 2006, and determined that the strongest storms got stronger as a result of increasing ocean warmth.
"It's almost like a survival-of-the-fittest argument," said Elsner, whose study is published in the journal Nature. Overall, tropical waters that breed cyclones have warmed by about 0.6 degrees F since 1981.
See why climate change is so hard to pin down? Everywhere you look, there are scientists arguing.
Another story from TODAY saying basically similar stuff:
Warmer Oceans = Not Good
Brrr! Ocean water temps take a dip
REHOBOTH BEACH -- Beachgoers and fishermen alike are noticing the unseasonably cold water temperatures that weather professionals attribute to a phenomena known as upwelling.
"Current water temperatures are very close to their July normal values of 73 F. However, a week ago water temperatures were 10 degrees colder," said Meteorologist Gary Szatkowski of the National Weather Service.
"South to southwest surface winds during the summer actually push the warm water temperatures at the surface offshore. Colder water from deeper in the ocean comes to the surface, resulting in cold water temperatures in the surf zone," he said.
And people are definitely feeling the chill.
"We have had a lot of people come up and ask if this is how the temperature normally is, and of course, we tell them no," said Lt. Mark Reynolds of the Rehoboth Beach Patrol. "The water got warmer for a few days -- went up to 71 or 72 F -- but now it's back down."
http://www.delmarvanow.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080722/NEWS01/807220336
No sunspots means a mini ice age is coming. Better get out the long johns. The Hummingbird migration is about 2 weeks early this year. I went from a gallon and a half per day last week to just about half a gallon yesterday. They are usually just coming in now. Lots of bees, not sure what that means.
That's what I've been saying for a long time. These folks have rejected traditional religion in favor of "Gia" worship. Gia as I understand it is a "mother earth" figure and elevates the planet and all it's complex weather, climate and geophysical processes to god status.
This means that if you disrespect god (Gia) she will get angry and smite you (make the seas rise or cause a hurricane).
Central to this belief is a fear of modern technology and a distrust of the "paternalism" of science and traditional societal mores.
The natural outgrowth of this movement would for us all to be running naked in the woods, breeding like animals and dying of typhoid and infections. In short a "natural" lifestyle.
I for one would prefer not to join that church.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Here is another leader that sees it as a religious movement.
The Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has angered green campaigners by describing their view on climate change as a "hysterical psuedo-religion".
In an article in the News Letter, Mr Wilson said he believed it occurred naturally and was not man-made.
"Resources should be used to adapt to the consequences of climate change, rather than King Canute-style vainly trying to stop it," said the minister.
Mr Wilson said he refused to "blindly accept" the need to make significant changes to the economy to stop climate change.
"The tactic used by the "green gang" is to label anyone who dares disagree with their view of climate change as some kind of nutcase who denies scientific fact," he said.
The minister said he accepted climate change can occur, but does not believe the cause has been identified.
"Reasoned debate must replace the scaremongering of the green climate alarmists."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7599810.stm
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I just wanted to counter all Gary's "the ocean is freezing the ocean is freezing !!!" posts.
Very Funny. I think we have the classic "Chicken or the Egg" debate. At least more of the World's leaders are coming to the conclusion that CC is NOT man made. Or if it is there is nothing short of moving everyone into a cave that will change anything.
Local professor says
Too bad even I as a lowly citizen with only a little degree can find the multiple uncontrolled variables in this "experiment." Adaptation of the plants, a la Darwin.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/09/08/lhc.collider/index.html
What do you think? Take the chance of killing everything via blackhole, or maybe unlock the secrets of some infinite nuclear energy we can use?
Let's hope, anyway.
This reminds me of the worries of some on the Manhattan Project who worried that splitting the atom would ignite the atmosphere across the world and catch the entire planet on fire.
I'm sure PETA will be all over this one. Lets see, I shouldn't drive my car, and now I shouldn't eat meat. I've got an idea, lets just stop breathing, that will put an end to human contribution to GW once and for all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie
"Her death near Sallanches, Savoy, in 1934 was from aplastic anemia, almost certainly due to exposure to radiation. The damaging effects of ionizing radiation were then not yet known, and much of her work had been carried out in a shed with no safety measures. She had carried test tubes containing radioactive isotopes in her pocket and stored them in her desk drawer, remarking on the pretty blue-green light that the substances gave off in the dark."
I believe she was acclaimed to be a brilliant scientist, and won at least 1 Nobel prize.
I have little faith in scienists until they Prove their theories and understand. People are not genetically smarter today than people in the last centuries who believed the Earth is flat, witchcraft was controlling events, there's Gods in the volcanoes, or didn't understand there wer galaxies outside the Milky Way. Scientists have many erroneous theories, and I suggest everyone demand Proof, and not act on theories which are frequently wrong.
Especially when acting on theories will seriously damage the economy. Such as adding huge surcharges to electric bills to pay for Pie in the sky generation systems.
The American public and most of our brightest and smartest politicians, analysts and advisers, all went along with the theory of WMD in Iraq. What if 2 years from now a similar case is evolved by whomever's in power that Iran has nuclear weapons and is preparing to use them, and we must act now. Do we demand proof or just go along again on some likely theory?
What say you Larsb - just believe the experts' theory? Take some action just in case? even if it throws us into a global decline? Look throughout history and see how many supposedly brilliant people were foolish. well I've learned from history and I'm not repeating the mistakes of the past. Demand proof and stop following these self-promoting "leaders" because they are charismatic or hold some high-office. Use analytical-logical thinking, not "theories" "maybe" "possible" and other doom-sayers theories of the day.
That's called "learning from experience."
But in the case of Iran, I don't think we will be required to do anything at all because I think Israel will take care of the situation.
Now that really scares me. Who will take care of the Israeli situation ? If the Middle East is to have any sort of peace then Israel will have to learn to live with its neighbours - but who will teach it ? Not the U.N. as the Israeli's just ignore inconvenient U.N. Resolutions and no-one seems to mind. Never mind Russia in Georgia; I see Israel as being the worst potential threat to peace.
Sorry, nothing to do with Global Warming but couldn't just let such a flippant comment pass unremarked.
You can look through history and find time-after-time how foolish even our greatest ancestors were. I don't see any evidence that we have made any sort of genetic leap beyond theis level of ignorance. I see these leaders and scientists having millions of theories and plans, of which a few contain the truth. As a general rule I don't follow any of them, until they are 99.99% agreed to and proven. GW is about 75% proven, and man-made GW is about 50% proven.
For all I know CO2 emissions may be the only thing keeping us from slipping into another Ice Age. Going out in the sun everyday, I have to vote that sun activitiy is THE main influence on our climate.
Me? I like winters in Florida. To paraphrase a quote attributed to Mark Twain, before all this auto global warming bru ha ha ...
...""The coldest winter I ever saw was the summer I spent in San Francisco." ...
- This quote has been attributed to Mark Twain, but until the attribution can be verified, the quote should not be regarded as authentic. "
link title
Can this be attributed to electrical driven Cable Cars?
Let's see 1862 was .....146 years ago....
It has been my experience that many, if not most, scientists, especially research scientists, don't have much interest in explaining or investigating things that are known. Certainly that which is known influences how they proceed, but it is things unknown that drives their passions. Surprises and unexpected outcomes serve to fuel the fire more than anything else, perhaps even more so if the surprise or unexpected outcome is of a tragic or unfortunate nature.
It is misguided to condemn those from previous generations when considering them through the lens of more current knowledge. I am not exactly sure what "genetically smarter" is supposed to mean, but you are correct in that previous generations were not less smart than we are today. Our body of knowledge has grown. It seems disingenuous to belittle someone who came before us because they did not have the same body of knowledge to work with. What happened to Curie was unfortunate. At the time she had no knowledge that what she was doing was dangerous. Ultimately her death served to shed some light on the dangers of working with radioactive materials. Pretty high price she paid, but if you're comfortable dancing on her grave, have fun.
I have little faith in scienists[sic] until they Prove their theories
I'm afraid you will be waiting quite a while to find more faith. Scientists aren't in the business of proving much of anything, or at least they shouldn't be. They observe, explain, and describe, and most would be willing to provide evidence that either supports or does not support a given theory though. There should be sufficient supporting evidence before something is even considered to be a theory. It remains a theory until there is sufficient evidence to undermine that status. Every theory could possibly be wrong. That is one of the reasons they are so useful, and not indicative of frivolity..
The point is to show that even the most gifted and brilliant of a time can be, and frequently are wrong, when they don't have most of the facts. I put climatologists in the same boat at this point. Making models and playing with the effect of hundreds of variables is not very convincing.
Scientists aren't in the business of proving much of anything, or at least they shouldn't be.
Wow! That is an alarmingly incorrect view. I would think you talking about philosophy, not science!
Not a new story, but a new study "proving" it is out........and already has other scientists challenging the findings...................(long sigh)
It could be a sign of just how traumatic 2005's Hurricane Katrina was that when Hurricane Gustav failed last week to fully pulverize New Orleans, it was news. The fallout from Gustav was relatively limited, but it was still a major storm, with maximum sustained winds of 110 m.p.h. when it made landfall in Louisiana — strong enough to cause an estimated $20 billion in damages. And Gustav won't be the last this season. Hurricane Hanna gathered strength in the Atlantic last week, and Ike is swirling not far behind, headed now for the U.S. That's just in the Atlantic, this month. Last May in the Pacific, the massive Cyclone Nargis killed an estimated 100,000 people in the Southeast Asian nation of Burma.
All these hurricanes in such a short period of time begs the question: are storms getting stronger, and if so, what's causing it? According to a new paper in Nature, the answer is yes — and global warming seems to be the culprit. Researchers led by James Elsner, a meteorologist at Florida State University, analyzed satellite-derived data of tropical storms since 1981 and found that the maximum wind speeds of the strongest storms have increased significantly in the years since, with the most notable increases found in the North Atlantic and the northern Indian oceans. They believe that rising ocean temperatures — due to global warming — are one of the main causes behind that change. "There is a robust signal behind the shift to more intense hurricanes," says Judith Curry, chair of the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr_webpage.html#section1
Similarly, efforts to project future levels of Atlantic hurricane activity using observed SST-PDI statistical relations derived from recent decades should be treated as highly speculative at this stage. While current models do project that greenhouse warming will likely cause increased hurricane intensities and rainfall rates globally in the future, the unambiguous detection of such changes and attribution of the changes to greenhouse warming has not yet been accomplished.
And this info was presented before the current study which I posted. We ALL know that the LATEST data is always the BEST data - Right?
Depends on who paid for it to be compiled and published.
Fair enough. If you meant no disparagement of Curie, I apologize. I still have the impression that you see this as a weakness in science. It is not.
Wow! That is an alarmingly incorrect view. I would think you talking about philosophy, not science!
While I do state a philosophical position, I am speaking of science, not philosophy. We have become lazy in our use of words like proof, prove, and proving. Many scientists will say it is best for them to avoid using these words in scientific discussions. Unfortunately, many scientists have also become lazy with them as well, especially when addressing an emotionally charged, highly politicized issue like anthropogenic global warming. The concept of proof is simply not a scientific idea. It is useful in courtrooms and liquor stores, but it should have no place in science.
When a scientist makes the conclusive statement "Human activity is causing global warming," or more directly related to the topic, "Automobile emissions are a major contributor to human caused global warming," we might respond "Prove it." Now, there is nothing particularly wrong with that exchange, but the scientist should accept that is not really his job to prove anything. He should be expected to present his evidence (his observations and data and facts) that supports his conclusion and anticipate that others may present evidence that may refute his conclusion. Faced with refuting evidence, the scientist should then be expected to go back to work motivated by the refuting evidence. Whether or not anyone actually ends up convinced of anything through all of this should not be of any concern to the scientist.
Maddening isn't it?
BTW - models, graphs, representational calculations and such are not evidence. They are analytical tools and means of presentation only, but not the evidence itself.
I haven't checked, but I was wondering if Bar Harbor is still dry. Did Mr. Palmer stick by his word?
So if scientists then neglect or as you say - isn't their job - then that leaves some administrator, politician or other "leader" who is surely not as expert to make decisions. Do you think that is good? In this case don't you think the non-scientist Al Gore has made a decision that the world needs to act to stop the proven anthropogenic GW?
I kinda like my scientists like those that worked on the Manhattan Project. A lot of theory and work, and then the final proof at Los Alomos. Or do you consider those folks engineers and not "pure" scientists? I also like my scientists to prove that drugs work, and wish that the FDA did a better job of requiring testing and proof.
Scientists should be diligent and conscientious in their work. What you describe here is pretty much the system we have. Someone gathers the evidence and presents it (someone else may do the presentation), and then someone else makes decisions based on that evidence.
Do you think that is good?
I think it is important to maintain these distinctions. A detective gathers evidence, and should do so without regard to guilt or innocence. Attorneys then present the evidence at trial, and they do so motivated by the outcome they desire. They will intentionally focus on evidence that supports their case and downplay or dismiss evidence that does not support their case. The decision is left to a judge or jury, hopefully following the weight of the evidence that has been presented and not the slick presentation. It is an imperfect system, but yes, I think it is a good one. A scientist should gather evidence. If he does so with the desire to prove something, that is the situation more conducive to being negligent. It is unfortunate that much of the activity within the scientific community is becoming more polemic.
Al Gore makes a very slick presentation. Lots of drama and flash. Thus far, the evidence he presents has not convinced me. There simply is too much refuting evidence that he likes to ignore, and he plays a little fast and loose with evidence that supports his position. (so maybe I am swayed a bit by his presentation)
It took me a while to get my head around this "proof" thing too. Here is what one scientists has to say about it. Different issue, but a decent explanation of the concept of proof and science. Why Scientists Can Never Prove That Biotech Crops Are Safe
Here is another essay that presents a more common idea of proof. The writer does identify it correctly though as An Intentionally Untechnical Essay. He makes some very good points, but I am one who likes to still think that words mean what they mean, not what I want them to mean. I'm comfortable with the charge of being pedantic.
Well people are not sequestered and listening to days of testimony or data on GW. They are getting the 3 min. or 1 paragraph item in the news, many of which are sensationalized to createviewer or reader interest. And these people who select what to cover are not experts in the GW field.
Different issue, but a decent explanation of the concept of proof and science.
Yes you can not prove anything 100%, but most people consider that you can prove theories - meaning proved to a high degree of probability. So yes if you or scientists in general want to use semantics nothing can ever be proved. But it is pretty sad commentary if science takes the stance that though they understand something the most, they want to be advisers, and not lead in the decision.
If you had 50% of the scientists in the world had theories claiming GW, and 50% claiming Global Cooling, and neither could prove their case, what should our leaders do? Maybe you hope our leaders see a vision in a dream? Or simply flip a coin?
A scientist should gather evidence.
And someone like Al Gore or GeorgeW. who have no science background should decide what to do with it? That's like having a master chef go shopping in NYC for a day to get ingredients, and having a 16yr. old burger-flipper at McD's prepare dinner.
In the case of man made Global Warming or now called Climate Change to take into account the cooling trend, we only hear from the attorneys for the Prosecution. The Media give them all the air time and dismiss the attorneys for the Defense as kook fringe. When in reality the opposite is true.
It's nothing new, you know. We used to take those with the opposing view and burn them at the stake or cut off their heads. Now we censor them through firing or cutting off their funding. Hypocrisy and public humiliation are often common elements of both approaches.