Loss of Arctic ice leaves experts stunned

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by Quasi, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. Quasi

    Quasi New Member

    310
    0
    0
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2007
  2. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    The interesting times in which we live certainly are anthropogenic in nature but have not a God damned thing to do with climate change. Pardon my friggin' French, but in the relative scheme of things, melting Arctic ice and the frequency of Cat5 hurricanes are non-issues, IMHO.

    Look, I don't mean to be a dick about your comment. I'm sure plenty of people are concerned over these developments. But I'm not willing to lunge headlong into an ill-conceived plan that will castrate our economy in the blind hope it will stop a maybe-extremely-long-term-problem, as the AlGore crowd demands.

    Personally, I'm more concerned with more immediate and concrete threats. YMMV.

    (Incidentally, The Guardian is about the most leftist piece of garbage rag of a news source you can dredge up. And that's saying something. Take what it says with a hefty grain of salt.)
     
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2007

  3. notdku

    notdku Administrator Staff Member

    6,288
    9
    38
    I would rather see money being spent on space exploration projects then global warming issues. At some point we are going to overpopulate and we need another planet to ruin before then.
     
  4. Quasi

    Quasi New Member

    310
    0
    0
    A lot of subject matter experts would disagree with you, but I'm sure you're already aware of that. For example, there's the Pentagon report from 2004 that predicted the following as a possible worst-case scenario:

    * By 2020, after a decade of cooling, Europe’s climate becomes “more like Siberia’s.”
    * “Mega-droughts” hit southern China and northern Europe around 2010 and last 10 years.
    * In the United States, agricultural areas suffer from soil loss due to higher winds and drier climate, but the country survives the economic disruption without catastrophic losses.
    * Widespread famine in China triggers chaos, and “a cold and hungry China peers jealously” at Russia’s energy resources. In the 2020-2030 period, civil war and border wars break out in China.
    * “Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life.” In a “world of warring states,” more countries develop nuclear weapons, including Japan, South Korea, Germany, Iran and Egypt.

    A separate, more recent military report predicted "global warming poses a serious threat to America’s national security with terrorism worsening and the U.S. will likely be dragged into fights over water and other shortages."
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18123962

    I actually didn't post the story to push for any kind of plan. I just saw the original article today and thought it was interesting, in a "preparation for TSHTF" kind of context. My own personal non-expert view is that the chances of our reversing a global warming trend are remote at best. The time for action was probably many years ago, and getting any kind of consensus on a plan is clearly going to be impossible. IMHO with global warming, peak oil, overpopulation, and the likely resulting resource wars, we're looking at rough times ahead, probably sooner than you expect.

    I've found basically the same article in a lot of different sources--let me know if you need me to post other references. It's not really a matter of opinion, anyway, either the Arctic ice melted or it did not--maybe the Earth has a liberal bias? :)
     
  5. teknoid

    teknoid New Member

    65
    0
    0
    And 20 years ago, it was "global cooling". The so called experts don't have a clue about climate change, or what's causing it if there actually is a change. Michael Crichton makes more sense in "State of Fear" than the doomsayers- and that's a fictional book.

    Sorry for the cut 'n paste, but this sums it up.

    * most of the warming in the past century occurred before 1940, before CO2 emissions could have been a major factor (p. 84);

    * temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased (p. 86);

    * temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (pp. 88-89);

    * “full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virginia, Colorado, UC Berkeley, and other prestigious schools ... the former president of the National Academy of Sciences ... will argue that global warming is at best unproven, and at worst pure fantasy" (p. 90);

    * temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground (p. 99);

    * data from weather balloons agree with the satellites (p. 100);

    * “No one can say for sure if global warming will result in more clouds, or fewer clouds,” yet cloud cover plays a major role in global temperatures (p. 187);

    * Antarctica “as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker” (p. 193, sources listed on p. 194);

    * The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been melting for the past 6,000 years (p. 195, p. 200-201); “Greenland might lose its ice pack in the next thousand years” (p. 363);

    * The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is “a huge group of bureaucrats and scientists under the thumb of bureaucrats,” and its 1995 report was revised “after the scientists themselves had gone home” (p. 245-246);

    * James Hansen’s predictions of global warming during a Congressional committee hearing in 1988, which launched the global warming scare, were wrong by 200 percent (.35 degrees Celsius over the next 10 years versus the actual increase of .11 degrees); in 1998, Hansen said long-term predictions of climate are impossible (pp. 246-247);

    * there has been no increase in extreme weather events (.e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather (p. 362, 425-426);

    * temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the “urban heat island” effect (p. 368-369); methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it (p. 369-376);

    * changes in land use and urbanization may contribute more to changes in the average ground temperature than “global warming” caused by human emissions (p. 383, 388);

    * temperature data are suspect because they have been adjusted and manipulated by scientists who expect to find a warming trend (p. 385-386);

    * carbon dioxide has increased a mere 60 parts per million since 1957, a tiny change in the composition of the atmosphere (p. 387);

    * increased levels of CO2 act a fertilizer, promoting plant growth and contributing to the shrinking of the Sahara desert (p. 421);

    * the spread of malaria is unaffected by global warming (pp. 421-422, footnotes on 422);

    * sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the 160,000 glaciers in the world (p. 423);

    * the icecap on Kilimanjaro has been melting since the 1800s, long before human emissions could have influenced the global climate, and satellites do not detect a warming trend in the region (p. 423); deforestation at the foot of the mountain is the likely explanation for the melting trend (p. 424);

    * sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters (four to eight inches) per hundred years for the past 6,000 years (p. 424);

    * El Niños are global weather patterns unrelated to global warming and on balance tend to be beneficial by extending growing seasons and reducing the use of heating fuels (p. 426);

    * the Kyoto Protocol would reduce temperatures by only 0.04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100 (p. 478);

    * a report by scientists published in Science concludes “there is no known technology capable of reducing [global] carbon emissions ... totally new and undiscovered technology is required” (p. 479);

    * change, not stability, is the defining characteristic of the global climate, with naturally occurring events (e.g., volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis) much more likely to affect climate than anything humans do (p. 563); and

    * computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts (p. 566).
     
  6. Quasi

    Quasi New Member

    310
    0
    0
    I guess I should post a link to the rebuttal to the "facts" in the Crichton sci-fi novel:

    Answers to Key Questions Raised by M. Crichton in State of Fear
    http://www.pewclimate.org/state_of_fear.cfm

    I don't think there's any serious question at this point that global warming is occurring. There will always be the non-believers, just like there will always be a group of folks that believe the Earth is 6000 years old. The big questions are what is the cause, and what will be the impact. I'm not so concerned about the cause, personally, as I think it's a moot point. The impact is something that I think is a point of interest regardless of your political leanings.
     
  7. sixgunsamori

    sixgunsamori New Member

    28
    0
    0
    Ah.. another convert to global manmade catastrophe predicted by the same weather models that can't accurately tell us what the weather will be doing 3 weeks from now but are somehow magically precise when it comes to seeing the future planet temps. Sounds like you're ready to restart the "survivalist" movement of the late 70s... in case you're too young to remember, survivalists were going to stockpile arms and ammo and supplies because of the coming ICE AGE... an ice age predicted by several of the same scientists who now espouse global warming. Yawn.....
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2007
  8. cnorman18

    cnorman18 New Member

    457
    0
    0
    Ride it out

    Global warming may--or may not--be occurring. The Earth has gone through climate changes before, and no doubt will do so again. A tiny bit of research reveals that there was a Medieval Warm Period as well as the better-known Little Ice Age of the 14th century and onward. Many posting here will recall the Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

    I recall reading some years ago that we have just completed a century or so of unusually benign weather, and that more frequent droughts, hurricanes, and floods can be expected--and that certainly seems to be the case.

    What seems all but certain is that we humans have nothing to do with these changes, if they are occurring at all. One little datum that is invariably missing from these debates is that the polar ice cap on Mars is shrinking, too--and as far as I know, there are no Republicans driving SUVs there.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

    It's wise to be prepared, and to be ready to deal with disasters large and small; in that light, Quasi's post ought to be taken to heart. We may very well be in for an interesting century or more. I have little doubt that the dominant species--us--will find a way to ride it out, as we have before.
     
  9. sixgunsamori

    sixgunsamori New Member

    28
    0
    0
    A wise oklahoma philosopher once said "believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see". Fear, catastrophe and suffering sell... and if you're in line for government grants your research had best be dire and urgent or you'll be at the back of the line with Annie Sprinkle's one woman show about female body parts and Mapplethorpes offensive photos. The truth of the matter, IMHO, is this; Science is a whore. The first one to put their cash on the nightstand gets to determine the outcome of the "study"... which renders all the studies meaningless.
    I'm all for being prepared, and I commend any and all who make that choice... but I don't have much patience with folks who use the words "science" and "consensus" in the same sentence, and even less for those that own firearms and take any "research" as gospel. The left has used doctored studies to deny the existence and scope of the second amendment for years, they've systematically lied their way through paper after paper to make their emotional and exploitive case against guns and gun owners. Now the same leftists are using the same tactics with different "researchers" to convince us that the sky is falling...
    By all means be prepared. Yawn.
     
  10. Quasi

    Quasi New Member

    310
    0
    0
    Please tell us more about the perils of science and how we too can join the Flat Earth Society. I didn't know Mapplethorpe was a scientist. What did he study, penisology?

    Good stuff.
     
  11. Pounce

    Pounce New Member

    405
    0
    0
    Global warming? :rolleyes: Bull dinky!$$$$:D
     
  12. allmons

    allmons New Member

    363
    0
    0
    Quasi, some people are more eloquent than others!

    But the true scientific fact is that we are overdue for an ice age. Once this period of warming ends, we will be in desperate trouble. Humanity will decrease dramatically again. It is the natural way to control the population. As Voltaire wisely noted, "The poor and the ignorant shall outbreed us." Throw into the mix the fact that medical science can now save infants that once would have perished, and you have a society of the least fit.

    Every life may be precious, but the lack of birth control in the developing nations insures that nothing CAN be done about global warming OR global cooling. More importantly, the planet does what it does. It is only human arrogance that leads us to believe we have much influence either way.

    By the way, Mr Crichton was correct. Global warming is a method of government control through fear. Once it fails to control all of us, there will be a new "threat."


    ;)
     
  13. Quasi

    Quasi New Member

    310
    0
    0
    Yeah, I remember reading somewhere, I think it was the article about the Pentagon report, that these warming periods in the past were followed by dramatic cooling, probably due to disruption of the jet stream.


    Funny, I thought that was terrorism--I haven't seen us losing any rights over global warming. But you could be right, it's probably both to varying degrees.
     
  14. teknoid

    teknoid New Member

    65
    0
    0
    Isn't it odd that the five warmest years on record were before WWII?

    History debunks the "global warming" fad far more effectively than I could. Some people just aren't happy unless they have something to worry about. The only "FACT" about climate change is... The climate changes. Always has, always will. Man is nothing but an irritating boil on the rear of mother nature. The world will be fine long after we're gone. Heck, one major volcanic eruption spews more crud into the atmosphere than man does in 100 years.
     
  15. sixgunsamori

    sixgunsamori New Member

    28
    0
    0
    Hmmm... well, since you asked, grasshopper, listen carefully; I am not a flat earther, a Ron Paul supporter or any stripe of right wing nutjob.(although it is handy to have a dismissive phrase to trot out when someone disagrees with your dearly held beliefs, I suppose...) I am merely pointing out what appears to me to be obvious. Science is a whore. If these studies to prove global warming were truly vital to the preservation of every man woman and child the private sector would have taken them under wing long before now... they haven't.
    As to the relation of Annie Sprinkle and Mapplethorpe? Government funding. Their art was unpopular crap, so Uncle Sugar dug out our collective wallets and paid them handsomely to produce artistic visions no one really wanted to see.
    I state again, global warming has been "proven" scientifically by deeply flawed data... and to claim a consensus of scientists or a weather model extrapolation as proof is no more scientific than declaring a presidential race winner based on a poll taken 50 years before the election. Too many variables. Consensus proved that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, the moon was made of cheese, and that Dewey won.
    Yeah, I know... some ice sheets are shrinking! Unfortunately, some ice sheets are simultaneously growing. That kinda throws a wrench in your "ice sheets as a zero sum game" idea. Sorry.
    But hey, don't let me stop ya from building your underground anti global warming shelter and stocking up on can goods and MREs... hippie chicks dig guys who can meaningfully stroke their goatee and agree with them about how horrible whatever thing they heard TV and movie personalities whine about is. Yawn.
     
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2007
  16. Quasi

    Quasi New Member

    310
    0
    0
    Yes, it might be odd, if it were true.

    According to NASA (and a lot of other easy to find sources), the 5 hottest years on record were 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2006.

    Here's a link and graphic (when I make factual claims that may not be universally accepted, I try to always provide a source):

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/2006_warm.html

    [​IMG]
     
  17. Quasi

    Quasi New Member

    310
    0
    0
    sixgunsamori,

    Sorry for the dismissive phrase, but when someone says basically that they don't believe in science, that's a pretty good indication to me that we're not going to be capable of having a constructive dialog.

    Believe it or not, global warming is not a "dearly held belief", but when I'm curious about something, I try to research it from a variety of angles and form an opinion based upon facts and logical conclusions. I actually do try to look at things that challenge my beliefs, unlike a lot of folks who participate in political debates. (And I try to provide a source when I base an argument on a fact that may be controversial, like that just as many glaciers are growing as shrinking.)

    Finally, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I was a survivalist or building an underground shelter, as I'm certainly not advocating any such thing.

    Best of luck with the anti-science thing.
     
  18. teknoid

    teknoid New Member

    65
    0
    0
    About that NASA data...

    They can't even calculate correctly. It's a wonder more shuttles haven't been lost.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0823/p02s01-wogi.html

    "When researchers checked, they found that the agency had merged two data sets that had been incorrectly assumed to match. When the data were corrected, it resulted in a decrease of 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit in yearly temperatures since 2000 and a smaller decrease in earlier years. That meant that 1998, which had been 0.02 degrees warmer than 1934, was now 0.04 degrees cooler."

    Put another way, the new figures show that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the US occurred during the 1930s, not more recently. This caused a stir among those critical of the push to stem human-induced climate change.
    -------------------------------------------------------------
    You might want to check out where some of these "Climate stations" are located that record temperatures, too. For some inexplicable reason, they can be found adjacent to air conditioner exhausts, inside equipment rooms, and on blacktopped parking lots. Check out some of these:

    http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=20

    If you think a majority of these are accurate, I've got a bridge you might be interested in. When you place temperature sensors in bad places, you get bad readings.
     
  19. sixgunsamori

    sixgunsamori New Member

    28
    0
    0
    Then re-check your NASA temp sources, dude. A glitch in the program (discovered by another anti- science visigoth, no doubt) forced NASA to admit(sheepishly) that the warmest year on record was 1934. Really. Check it out. Of course the sky is falling sights aren't interested in updating the info, as that puts a bit of a crimp in their "we must do something!" action line.You haven't seen the info yet, which says a lot about your sources.
    Do I discredit all science? No. I do see that wherever liberal activists are involved, facts don't seem to get checked as fervently as they do elsewhere. "Arming America" for example... whose author was eventually forced to return his award because he didn't actually do any research... AND NO ONE BOTHERED TO CHECK.
    In case the science angle really interests you;
    NASA Corrects 120 Years Worth of Bad Data, Notes NCPA Expert
    DALLAS (August 14, 2007) - The warmest year on record is no longer 1998 and not because it has been overtaken by a recent heat wave. NASA scientist James Hansen's famous claims about 1998 being the warmest year on record in the U.S. was the result of a serious math error, according to H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). NASA has now corrected the error, anointing 1934 as the warmest year and 1921 as the third warmest year, not 2006 as previously claimed.

    But wait! Theres more!

    NASA's ground based temperature records for the past 120 years, which have been the basis for most of the claims that global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate, almost entirely due to human actions, have now been corrected to show that much of the warming occurred before CO2 emissions and concentrations began to rise significantly.
    I'm sure the reporting service is staffed by other low forehead dudes like me... but you can check them out at
    http://eteam.ncpa.org/news/nasa-backtracks-on-1998-warmest-year-claim
     
  20. Quasi

    Quasi New Member

    310
    0
    0
    Cool, thanks for the link. I'm glad people are keeping NASA on their toes. I hope they update that graphic (above) soon, with the new values, as it seemed pretty illustrative.

    Also, I'm sure you saw these parts of the CS Monitor article:

    "Still, McIntyre called his finding "a micro-change," and others agree. For one, the reranking didn't affect global records, and 1998 remains tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, the Los Angeles Times notes, quoting climatologist Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York."

    "The data adjustment changes 'the inconsequential bragging rights for certain years in the U.S.,' he said. But 'global warming is a global issue, and the global numbers show that there is no question that the last five to 10 years have been the hottest period of the last century.' "

    I'm not a climatologist, but I would think there are so many of these recording stations across the globe that the variations are averaged out. Plus, if a particular station had a bias of being high for example, wouldn't it be high for all of the years' data, and not just the ones that you don't like? :)