11
Jan
Jan
Reader asks, “If global warming is a farce, why is the ice melting in the arctic?”
We get a lot of questions, comments and tips through our contact page. Obviously, we don’t have the time to individually answer each question about global warming and climategate. So, considering the knowledge level of of our readers, we’d like to occasionally pose these questions to you. If it’s a topic you are well-versed on, please take a few minutes to answer. If you know of good web pages that specifically answer the reader’s question, please provide the link. Then, what we’ll do is start to build some Q&A pages with the common questions and your answers, and direct readers to them.
So, today’s question is: “If global warming is a farce , why is the ice melting in the arctic?”
Possibly related posts:
The two primary drivers of the earth’s climate are the two sole energy sources….the Sun and the earth’s interior. Why is the latter forgotten in the debate?! Where does our heat come from? And yet we focus on a trace gas which is just one of a multitude of gases in our atmosphere!
Undersea volcanism is an enormous yet underrated and unquantified source of heat. Totally ignored by the IPCC and underestimated by many other scientists also.
Whilst the Arctic is the most sensitive region to atmospheric temperature variances, it is also susceptible to heat sources from undersea volcanism. The Gakkel Ridge in particular was initially not thought to be volcanic, untill massive activity and heat sources were discovered in 2001-02. This can also influence the Arctic Oscillation as well as contribute to localised ice loss and thinning. In 1998 at the height of El Nino, many climate scientists expected substantial Arctic ice loss in the area north of Siberia/Alaska (due to a warming Pacific Ocean) – it didnt happen – instead most of the ice loss was in fact north west of Scandinavia, downstream (3 major Arctic currents feeding south into the Atlantic) of the Gakkel Ridge. It got scientists thinking…and three years later they discovered an enormous heat source.
All the energy on the planet comes from the Sun or the earth’s interior and the oceans are the distributors of this energy – the atmosphere is not the major distributor of this energy like the mainstream media, Gore Inc. and the ‘climate sell-outs’ would have you believe. The atmosphere is merely the medium for the delivery of energy – the transfer and storage of energy (received from the sun and earth’s core) is via the oceans.
CO2 has next to nothing to do with it. Never has, never will.
there is a great site called the cryosphere which shows that the ice is not melting in the arctic and that in fact it is increasing. Climate change is a total fraud which is enabling some corrupt scientists and politicians to make a lot of money.
Don’t let the alarmists change the argument. The only hope they have is pinned on nebulous arguments about CO2, and there is no evidence. None, zero, nada.
We’re between ice ages, so ice will be melting (probably even occasionally during an ice age), and glaciers will continue to shrink (or grow). All of that is a big “so what”?
Where’s the beef? And the alarmists can’t provide it so why should anybody (but them) be alarmed?
Atmosphere does influence the solar contribution to Earth’s surface level temperature, however, water vapor is the primary modulating medium. The mention of the earth core as a source of planetary heat did not arise in my thinking until I read the post by Cam. While this is true, the variability of the crust thickness through which the heat must pass, with attendant temperature drop, is not known with sufficient precision to allow any but the most crude computation. Still it is real and important.
The more information ignored by the climate pseudo scientists, the more it becomes clear the magnitude of the scam they attempt to foist upon us.
To the previous posters, I would inquire as to why the vast number of glaciers globally are melting as well? If you follow the logical reasoning, then you should at least conclude that the atmosphere may indeed be a part of the cause….
You should read some of the other post. The vast number of glaciers aren’t melting. Or is this more Al Gore Voodoo Bullshit you are spouting?
Mount Killamanjaro, also in the Andes, the entire area surrounding Mount Mckinley, the Himalayas,…look at the facts not the posts. Look at the photos of the recent decline of the glacial ice and understand that these massive chunks of ice ain’t coming back….at least anytime soon
Another AGW beleiving wonder. Try reading the below links. Then throw out your Al Gore doll and start sleeping by yourself. You people think everyone else is stupid. I’d suggest if you want to see stupid you look in the mirror.
Mt. Kilamanjaro is the result of deforestation in the area not AGW.:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/14287/Nature_Study_Debunks_Kilimanjaro_Glacier_Myth.html
Mount McKinley glacier is growing:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_globalwarmingpseudo65.htm
Himalyan Glaciers Growing:
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_globalwarmingpseudo65.htm
Hey I’m just saying, look at the photos! There are many examples of retreating glaciers and they are massive examples of this big ice melting situation. If you do actually take a look you will see with your own eyes what I’m referring to; the retreat of massive amounts of ice is unmistakable. Plus there is no need to be so rude man….be good…also the Heartland Institute is a calling card for putting your head in the sand dude. John Daly was funded by an organization interested in promoting these denials of the truth. We’ve never experianced a northern passage until now so go figure you big brute…
Do a bit of googling folks !
Glaciers will melt, particularly during the summer. And, in any event it’s not terribly frightening. After all, if we weren’t in a ‘global warming’ period, then glaciers would not be melting, and this would be known as an ICE AGE !
Just as Mt Kilmanjaro, you can have melting when the temperature is consistently below freezing if there is not sufficient precipitation.
Also see:
Michaels, Patrick J. “NBC Twists Facts, Again, About Glacier Park.” September 15, 2001. http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3899 (accessed February 2, 2010).
In any event, the concerns about glaciers is misplaced. So what? Does glacier melt imply global warming ? So what?
There is NO EVIDENCE that man has created global warming. The previous argument was dubious, even at the outset: man contributes to CO2. Both CO2 and temperature had been increasing, therefore the increasing temperature must be man’s doing.
CO2 has continued rising, but for the past couple of decades the temperature (by satellite measurement) has been flat, and there has been some cooling during the past 8 years. That fact alone has blown all the IPCC’s computer model projections out of the water. Not surprising because historic data shows that CO2 follows temperature increases by hundreds of years. In fact, CO2 was many times higher going into one of the ice ages. Not likely to qualify as a serious driver of temperature.
The earth has gone through many periods of warming and cooling before man could have had anything to do with it. There is NO EVIDENCE that this time man has caused global warming.
In the meantime, there’s plenty of time (providing we start moving on it now) to convert to natural gas and nuclear power and CO2 will be great for the plant life. (In fact, Holdren, Obama’s science “czar”, at one point in the past recommended that we figure out how to cause global warming in order to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. But you might want to consider the credibility of that source. Since he also gets mention in the Climategate emails, and hangs around with Obama types.
From: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5958/1394
“The carbon dioxide (CO2) content of the atmosphere has varied cyclically between ~180 and ~280 parts per million by volume over the past 800,000 years, closely coupled with temperature and sea level….During the Middle Miocene, when temperatures were ~3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than at present, pCO2 appears to have been similar to modern levels….. Results for the Miocene and Late Pliocene support a close coupling between pCO2 and climate (Fig. 2).”
CO2 is not, of course, the only driver of the climate. That is why global temperature does not increase in lock-step with the increase in CO2. There are also some relatively short term instabilities in the climate such as ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) which add noise to the temperature signal. In the far distant past, a further complication is the fact that the sun’s output was significantly less than at present, by about 4 or 5%. When the effects of the solar output and CO2 are combined, there is good agreement with the onset of major glacial periods.
Measurements by satellites show that there has been a decrease in the radiation emitted by the Earth in the frequency bands absorbrd by CO2, so the Earth is still warming even if the temperature data doesn’t show it. (Heat and temperature are not the same thing.) Have you actually looked at the Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU)
satellite temperature data? It’s available here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/. It clearly shows that the temperature has, in fact, increased significantly over the last 20 years. There was a plateau for about 5 years, starting in 2002, but the temperature is now increasing rapidly, and it looks like this may turn out to be the warmest year in recorded history.
Hey Denise, look at the fact that on Mt Kilarmajaro the ice used to be thirty to forty feet in depth, and now it is measured in INCHES. This fact is disturbing not because it is summer, but because it is part and parcel of a massive worldwide trend that has affected many different mountains and glaciers and reflects the truth that millions of people across this planet will be losing their drinking water, not only in this area but in many other places, on many continents; for you to imply that this is fantasy is ignorant or purposely misleading. This is not about political bull crap for me, but apparently it is for you. Open your eyes and look at the photographic evidence of MASSIVE glaciers retreating, and try to restart your heart…
Hazard: Mt Kilamanjaro issue has been resolved. (Even the knowledgeable warmists) have backed away from that one. The snow melt was caused by man, after decades of tree removal around the base of the mountain and nearby. Winds used to carry moisture from the forest up across the mountain. That moisture replaced the snow. Without replacement, the radiant equatorial sun is now removing the snow.
The “political bullcrap” is what the warmists have been feeding you and everybody else. Have you gone thru the ClimateGate emails? Do you have any notion of how many problems there are with trying to use surface temperature recordings to estimate the earth’s temperature? (even assuming there has been no bias in that process)
Do you know the difference between global warming and anthropogenic global warming? (AGW)
The big picture would be the entire period between ice ages and that entire duration is clearly one that was caused by global warming. We are now between ice ages. The last 20 years no temperature increase, (satellite measurements) but it’s hardly worth arguing because global warming (as opposed to AGW) is mother nature’s ongoing business. Nothing much we can do about that. (In fact, some glaciers are growing, some are shrinking. Google “glacier melt”. Wind currents and changes in precipitation may be partly responsible. But think about it. We are in a warm period betwixt ice ages (7 in the last one million years). Why would you expect glaciers to all be growing, even during the summer during this respite? If you were using “global warming” but meant “AGW”, then there’s also no point in a further discussion anyway, because there is NO evidence (none) linking mankind to global warming. Present the following question to anyone who claims otherwise. What evidence do you have that mankind is causing global warming? Glacier or ice melt is not evidence that man is involved. Neither are hurricanes, tornados, or your Aunt Sallie’s rheumatism. Computer models are not evidence of anything.
CO2 may be increasing, and we are one of the minor contributers to that, but there’s also no evidence that CO2 even has any impact, at anything near its current level on temperature. Both historical data and current data attest to that. However, If you prefer looking at pretty pictures and wringing your hands, be my guest.
More information is needed to identify the Kilimanjaro glacier retreat. If actual melting is the source, then there must be vastly more water rushing down the valley streams. I have not read of any such abnormal flow. The other option is sublimation, in which ice turns to vapor without appreciable liquid presence. This sublimation may exist even in sub-freezing temperatures if there is extremely low partial pressure of water vapor in the atmosphere. This would also be indicated by lower than usual precipitation in the glacier regions.
As per above, this logic is quite well taken, however when seeing the global situation these answers begin to peter out; the situation in many other glacial areas shows other reasons. The ice is melting whether with incredible downstream amounts or not, the deal is that the stuff is gone bye bye. In the Himalayas, there are 15,000 glaciers, and they are not doing so well do to incredible amounts of melting, this is not because of a hot summer or some molten earth thing because these other effects are found on top of huge mountains. The idea that the atmosphere can effect the world is a no brainer to me…why is this so hard for anyone else here to see?
Joel Hazard = zombie
I bet you could shine a flashlight in one ear and light would come out the other.
Joe: Without realizing it, (and your reference to “atmosphere” isn’t exactly rigorous) there are indeed things out that “effect the world”. However, the only real debate centers on whether or not mankind is “one of those things”. If so, there is hope that we can at least rectify that part. So far the only possible connection to mankind that involves climate change is our contribution to the atmosphere of some CO2. But there is no evidence that CO2 at or near its current level has any influence on temperature. CO2 has in the distant past been much higher than now and the rate of increase is low and that rate has remained linear for quite a long time. So we have time to take steps (and should, but no catastrophic economic policy needed).
If you want to find out more about the some of things that do influence climate, one thing you can do, for starters, is Google Henrik Svensmark. (he’s a Danish physicist.) Watch the 6 part video, about 1/2 hour viewing time. There is also a recent book that Svensmark has co-authored. The name is something like “The Chilling Stars”.
“But there is no evidence that CO2 at or near its current level has any influence on temperature.”
See my previous post referencing the article in Science magazine. According to the article, the last time that the CO2 level was as high as it is now, the global temperature was approx. 5-10 degrees F higher, and the sea level was approx. 100 feet higher than it is now. I would consider that to be “evidence”.
Dick….you are still being lame and still need to start thinking for yourself and quit reading “science” articles where the “science” has been busted or will soon be. Based on what you posted I would have to point out.
1. It’s been 15 million years, not 800,000 years, The study you cite is from ice core samples and it only goes back to 800,000 years, Stating this is the higest it’s been in 800,000 years is false and/or twisting things to suit your agenda.
2. The ice core samples were only taken from Antarctica and can anyone be sure you wouldn’t get different results from ice core samples in the Arctic, or from glaciers in other places? It’s very limited data frankly.
3. You state “the global temperature was approx. 5-10 degrees F higher, and the sea level was approx. 100 feet higher than it is now.” This prompts me to ask you to please explain why the sea levels and temperature are lower now even though the CO2 levels are high? If C02 caused this last time, why isn’t it doing the same thing now? Hmmmm? Could it be that the CO2 level has little or nothing to do with it?
Don’t be an Al Gore lemming, read something besides Al Gore approved websites.
“Dick….you are still being lame and still need to start thinking for yourself and quit reading “science” articles where the “science” has been busted or will soon be. Based on what you posted I would have to point out:
“1. It’s been 15 million years, not 800,000 years, The study you cite is from ice core samples and it only goes back to 800,000 years, Stating this is the higest it’s been in 800,000 years is false and/or twisting things to suit your agenda.”
The article references the ice core record, and states that their CO2 reconstruction accurately reproduces the ice core CO2 data, but their data is not limited to that period. “When pCO2 levels were last similar to modern values (that is, greater than 350 to 400 ppmv), there was little glacial ice on land or sea ice in the Arctic, and a marine-based ice mass on Antarctica was not viable.” The authors are referring to the Middle Miocene. In other words, according to the article, CO2 levels have not been this high for some 15 million years. BTW, where do you think the science has been “busted”?
“2. The ice core samples were only taken from Antarctica and can anyone be sure you wouldn’t get different results from ice core samples in the Arctic, or from glaciers in other places? It’s very limited data frankly.”
They also have ice core data from Greenland.
“3. You state “the global temperature was approx. 5-10 degrees F higher, and the sea level was approx. 100 feet higher than it is now.” This prompts me to ask you to please explain why the sea levels and temperature are lower now even though the CO2 levels are high? If C02 caused this last time, why isn’t it doing the same thing now? Hmmmm? Could it be that the CO2 level has little or nothing to do with it?”
We’ve only been at this global warming business for a couple hundred years or so – it takes a while to melt all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica, so cut us a little slack!
All of the available temperature data, however, show a fairly rapid rise in temperatures over at least the last hundred years. There is a great deal of thermal inertia in the oceans, so if the rise hasn’t been as rapid as some have predicted, that could be the reason.
“Don’t be an Al Gore lemming, read something besides Al Gore approved websites.”
Gee, I didn’t know this was an Al Gore approved website!
I doubt if Dr. Spencer’s website has the Al Gore stamp of approval either. Furthermore, I haven’t seen “An Inconvenient Truth” or read any of Al Gore’s books, so if you want to criticize Al Gore, you’ll have to leave me out of it.
1. You evidently don’t comprehend.
1A. If you want to read about busted science try reading the articles on this website.
2. Big deal, still doesn’t tell you what was going on over the entire globe.
3. Bullshit. Try answering the question, not making feeble excuses. Cut you some slack? That was good for a laugh. The available temperature data was destroyed, what you seem to believe is true has been altered beyond belief. Not to mention convenient truths like ignoring thermometers, ignoring tree ring data when it doesn’t prove warming, etc.
4. You know what I meant by Al Gore approved. Means you read stuff from believer websites only and ignore anything contrary to your pre-formed opinion.
In closing try removing your head from your ass. It will smell better and you might actually see something.
To: Dick Morris: Where’s the beef?
You’ve raised some points, but have not provided any evidence of AGW. It’s the AGW proponents who must provide evidence to give credibility to their claims. CO2 levels have evidently increased, and some of that increase is likely due to man. So what? There is no evidence that CO2 has any influence on temperature. It’s a trace gas representing less than 4/100 of one percent by volume of the atmosphere. Water vapor volume varies between 2 to 4 percent, which is quite a bit of variation, and is at least 50 to 100 times more prevalent. The level of CO2 was several times higher than now going into one of our ice ages, which indicates that it can’t be much of a temperature driver. Finally, the earth’s temperature was higher during the MWP (obviously no AGW then), and there is plenty of evidence that natural temperature variation as been as large as what we have recently experienced. (In fact, our warming period seems to have now taken a couple of decades off, and more recently, there is cooling.) There are also other convincing explanations for the earth’s temperature variation – such as Svensmark’s, which based on solar activity and its interaction with cosmic rays (and their level), and in conjunction with our location in the Galaxy. One revolution around our Galaxy take about 250 million years, and we’ve had 7 ice ages in just the past 1 million years, so there’s likely to be lots of new experiences ahead.
As an aside, not too long ago Obama’s “science czar”, Holdren, believed that we were experiencing a CO2 famine. (Perhaps you should ask him to expound on that ?)
In the meantime, the annual rate of increase in CO2 is linear and low, so no crisis (even though politicians hate to “waste” any crisis). We can watch it for the next decade. The steps we are beginning to take – more nuclear power, and more natural gas, hybrid autos, are already underway. (but useless if China, India and Russia, among others, don’t also start adjusting.)
Hey Denise, which glaciers are growing? The AGW is just a term to deride the fact that global warming is a fact. The term itself adds an extra “big” label to just confuse a bunch of Fox News viewers; and in reality tries to take away our own responsibility away from this GW impact. Talk to some Europeans and some people that live in the Andes…please…. Most of my inquires into this situation of deniers has found a bunch of paid disinformationists. (Also, no my head is not see-through nor a conduit for a zombie nationalist John)
“JOHN February 5, 2010 at 9:38 pm
“1. You evidently don’t comprehend.”
If you don’t understand the answer it’s probably because your question made no sense.
“1A. If you want to read about busted science try reading the articles on this website.”
If you can show me an article on this website that actually discusses science rather than just politics I’ll read it.
“2. Big deal, still doesn’t tell you what was going on over the entire globe.”
CO2 diffuses over the entire globe as soon as it is emitted.
“3. Bullshit. Try answering the question, not making feeble excuses. Cut you some slack? That was good for a laugh. The available temperature data was destroyed, what you seem to believe is true has been altered beyond belief. Not to mention convenient truths like ignoring thermometers, ignoring tree ring data when it doesn’t prove warming, etc.”
It was intended to be humorous – the following is not.
The claim that the temperature data has been destroyed is a bold-faced, right-wing lie. As is the claim that anybody is ignoring thermometer readings. The “divergence problem” with tree ring data has been widely discussed in the literature. So what did they do about it? They replaced the unreliable tree ring data with actual thermometer readings. Imagine that. You contradicted yourself – and in the space of only one sentence!
“4. You know what I meant by Al Gore approved. Means you read stuff from believer websites only and ignore anything contrary to your pre-formed opinion.
“In closing try removing your head from your ass. It will smell better and you might actually see something.”
I’ll look at anything that anybody suggests. I go to websites like RealClimate or ScepticalScience because they discuss actual climate science, calmly and rationally, as opposed to purely political sites like this, where I see people threatening to “beat the crap” out of anybody who disagrees with them, or they hurl insults because they are devoid of any logical arguments.
PS: My head has never been anywhere near my [fourth point of contact].
to: Dick Morris
There are more than a few discussions on this website that involve science, (of course, if you’re in denial it may be difficult to recognize that). In any event if you recall the name of this particular website (duh) it should be clear to you that the emphasis is on the fraudulent claims, the politics, and the phony climate science, particularly as carried on by (but not limited to) the IPCC, the CRUs & affiliates, along with some others. Under the best of circumstances we’re going to have to replace all the actors, shut down the IPCC, and instead each nation with the resources and interest should take its own measurements, keep the raw data and describe thoroughly the measuement process, make all data available to others, and do its analysis, with “peer review” by all interested scientists of all nations.
Now I keep asking members of the AGW Church for some evidence that CO2 is a driver of temperature. In fact, all indications are that temperature increases precede increases in CO2. All other claims by warmists about global warming, sea levels rising, glaciers and ice packs melting (and we are after all still between ice ages) are of no relevance to your case unless man is the culprit. And the only known link to man is that we contribute CO2 to the atmosphere. But, if CO2 has nothing to do with increasing temperature, then the jig is up.
So, I repeat, how about some evidence that CO2 has anything to do with temperature? You either have some, or you’re taking the AGW claim on faith (in which case you’re definitely a member of that church!)
Incidently ClimateGate does not hide its major agenda (SkepticScience and RealClimate are in the barrel with the IPCC boys.) Perhaps you should try the ” Whats Up With That” website, or “Joannenova.com”.
Dick.
You are obviously a self-proclaimed genius, you are right, the rest of the world is wrong. If this is indeed true, please go here:
http://www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
and you should easily be able to win $500,000.
Please let us know when you do and we’ll be happy to let you buy us all a beer.
The whole rest of the world? No, but I’ve got 97% of the actual working climatologists on my side, according to a poll conducted at the University of Illinois, Chicago, last year.
As for that beer, don’t hold your breath. According to the rules of the game, it is impossible to collect before the year 2100. And there ain’t no way on God’s green Earth I’m going to give $15 to JunkScience.com.
Last year was a long time ago. Just the past few months have turned up massive fraud. Why don’t you go poll them now Dick? Or should we do like you and rely on yesterday’s news?
“Denis Ables February 6, 2010 at 7:50 am”
.
.
What would you consider to be “evidence”? We have known for over 100 years, from laboratory measurements, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The fact that it is a trace gas is irrelevant, since all of the greenhouse effect is due to the minor constituents of the atmosphere, based on composition, not just concentration.
The MWP appears to have been a regional phenomenon, not global, and the Earth was not warmer than now, or even close to it. The Sun has also been significantly cooler in the distant past, and nobody is saying that CO2 is the only climate driver that can cause an ice age.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased approx. 40% since pre-industrial times, and I have not seen a plausible explanation of that increase other than anthropogenic. I’ve seen some pathetic attempts to blame it on volcanoes, but volcanoes emit a very small fraction of the anthropogenic emissions, which are now approaching 30 Billion tonnes per year. All available temperature datasets show that temperatures have increased significantly since pre-industrial times, so what more do you want? Occam’s Razor and all that.
We are all quite well aware that there have been natural temperature variations in the past, including dramatic events like ice ages, and small, short term variations like el Niño. We are also well aware that the Sun is the primary driver of the climate, but the solar output has declined slightly over the last few decades. Nevertheless, the temperature has actually gone up over the last 10 or 15 years, as you can see on Dr. Spencer’s website, http://www.drroyspencer.com. (Dr. Spencer is an AGW skeptic, so his web site is safe to look at, JOHN.)
Two words….El Nino
“JOHN February 8, 2010 at 1:44 pm
“Last year was a long time ago. Just the past few months have turned up massive fraud. Why don’t you go poll them now Dick? Or should we do like you and rely on yesterday’s news?”
The past few months have turned up a few quotes which were taken out of context and twisted to mean something other than what was intended. In no case do the e-mails invalidate the actual science. If your entire field had been subjected to a smear campaign like the one that climatologists have had to endure for some 20 years, you might want to blow off some steam too.
I’d actually like to see them repeat the poll. I bet they’d get an even higher percentage of support, just as a reaction to the hysteria of this “climategate” hoax. Surely you don’t think that actual scientists can be taken in by that sort of BS do you?
Dick,
Regarding your “statements”……….
1. “The past few months have turned up a few quotes which were taken out of context and twisted to mean something other than what was intended.”
You are delusional. This is obvious as an elephant in the bathtub with you and you are clueless.
2. “In no case do the e-mails invalidate the actual science. ”
They certainly point to lying, scheming, etc., which in turn points to invalidated science. It is being invalidated all over the world on about a daily basis. But, still you’re clueless.
3. “If your entire field had been subjected to a smear campaign like the one that climatologists have had to endure for some 20 years, you might want to blow off some steam too.”
Climatologist for 20 years? Smear campaign for 20 years? That’s laughable. I still have to see anyone with a degree in Climatology. Your boy Pachaurin is a railroad engineer.” Al Gore certainly doesn’t have a degree in climatology. Neither does anyone else…it’s a job description. I could be a climatologist, too. Maybe I could get a online degree for 500 bucks….yeah that’s the ticket….I can get rich by falsifying data and lying to the ignorant masses who you think are supposed to beleive what you say merely because you say it.
4. “I’d actually like to see them repeat the poll. I bet they’d get an even higher percentage of support, just as a reaction to the hysteria of this “climategate” hoax. Surely you don’t think that actual scientists can be taken in by that sort of BS do you?”
What sort of BS? There are “actual scientists” coming out everyday against the AGW fantasy. Your “climatologist” might as well be proctologists because all they come up with is crap. I’d like the poll repeated, too. I bet you’d be in for a big surprise.
Again we go back to if you’re so smart why don’t you go here: http://www.ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/
and pickup an easy $500,000. Hmmmm?
“minor constitutents of the atmosphere” ?
What about water vapor? (and don’t tell me it’s not a greenhouse gas)
“MWP appears to be regional” ?
Greenland and northern Europe are a pretty good chunk of property. “appears” you can’t prove, the best you can say is it “might” be regional.
CO2 follows temperature increases. That regional heating may be a follow-up to the MWP, or ocean warming. (A warmng ocean releases more CO2.) The CO2 annual increase is very nearly linear, and low, at 2ppm. Industrial growth on the other hand has been much faster than linear.
If I knew of evidence for AGW, there’d be no discussion. What you’ve stated is not evidence, it’s conjecture, and not particularly strong conjecture at that.
I’ve looked at Spencers’ graph. There has not been global warming recently. But, that doesn’t matter. The point is that you have provided no evidence that mankind has anything to do with global warming.
Since you claim you’re willing to read anything, try the website below. They demonstrate with simple math that CO2, even if it had a feedback mechanism that worked the way warmists think it does, would contribute basically nothing to warming.
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Joel just answered his own question. No BRAIN-er. Are you aware that we have a SUN, Joel??? And do you have any idea how intense the SUN is at higher altitude???? I live at a high altitude in Wyoming and I have seen ice and snow melt with the temp below 0 F. Could you possibly see the connection???? Heat(SUN)=melting glacier(SNOW and ICE). You need to go to the website called The Resilient Earth. We are in an interglacial period of 3 MYO ice age and that is what ice does in an interglacial, melt or most of North America and Europe would still be under a mile thick glacier that melted 10,000 years ago. Sea level was about 400 ft lower that it is now. For most of the earth’s history, there have been no polar caps and sea level has been higher. Are you getting this, Joel???
Joel isn’t interested in reality, he got brainwashed by Al Gore and now he wants to brainwash us with bs. He’s just confused and incapable of thinking for himself. He’s probably 40 and still living at home with mommy.
John: “Dick Morris” has to be a phony name.
This is probably a student writing his thesis for a degree in psychology, with a title something like:
“How long can you keep otherwise occupied people trying to (re)educate you, if you take a ridiculous position, but maintain a friendly posture.”
Good Luck, “Dick” !
Denis, if that’s the case….
Dick I have one question: How long can you keep a moron in suspense?
“How long can you keep otherwise occupied people trying to (re)educate you, if you take a ridiculous position, but maintain a friendly posture.”
I was begining to think the same thing about you. But why is it important to you to think that I’m using a phony name? I have no idea whether “Denis Ables” is your real name, and I don’t give a rat’s [rear end] if it is or not. What difference would it make? But if it matters so much to you, yes, that is my real name.
Hey all, many thoughts here….for one I’ve been in the Wind River Mountains (Wyoming) many times in summer no doubt and I’ve walked on snow fields in 70 degree weather and had snowball fights in my shorts; the altitude literally is responsible for MORE snow, ice, etc to accumulate, Not less…..
John I’m not too sure why you are so mean-hearted….poor thing
To Denis, the Methane that is flying out of the arctic permafrost is WAY more influencial than the CO2…..See you all on a boat somewhere soon
The only thing flying with you is bullshit dude.
Joel, Mr. No Brain-er just contradicted himself again!!! He has answers for everything. Wrong answers!!!! If high altitude causes the ice/snow to grow, why are some glaciers retreating like the Himmies??? Joel??? Stop stroking your Al Gore doll. Your Al Gore doll, like Al Gore is a registered sex offender so watch how you stroke him. Here is an example of what glaciers do: 1400-1850 Little Ice Age also known as the Mountain glacial period where glaciers advance like the Himalayas. 1850-1890: warming and glaciers retreated. 1890-1915 glaciers advanced to almost LIA size. 1915-1945:Warming and glaciers retreated. 1945-1977. Cooling=glacial advances again. 1977-1999. Warming and glaciers retreat. Do you see a trend here. Stop stroking your doll, Joel and listen! Another helpful article is on black soot on glaciers causing abnormal melting. Again that thing called the SUN is involved with heat!!! This was in your 6th grade science class last year, Joel. And Joel, I would be glad to supply you a boat. See you near Niagara Falls???? Will you need a paddle??? Be sure to forget your life preserver. Does your Al Gore doll swim??? He must, being so full of hot air. A hazard!
Mr. Hazard:
Now it’s methane? You’ll have to give the IPCC a bit of time to figure out how man might be creating methane. Oops, I forget, we’re creating warming which is causing methane to be released.
Well, then, here’s another question for you …. where did all the methane go during the Medieval Warming Period? Oops, I forgot that the IPCC is in denial about that segment of our history.
Lets get down to basics to match your IQ. THE ICE IS NOT MELTING!!!
We’ve moved on to glacier melt since desertification has been totally debunked. Read the normally alarmist National Geographic News for a nice story about the “greening of the desert” How many stories with photos of expanding deserts in Africa have you see over the years? It was all settled by all the best people that the deserts were growing and would continue to do so. Except when they didn’t? Now they are retreating and they have ten years of photos to show it. Guess what? They may expand again and they may contract again. That’s natural variability and the glaciers act that way also. Try to remember that we are not the ones offering a holistic theory of everything. Your pals are doing that and we are debunking them on a daily basis. If I was playing on your team I’d have to ask if the underlying gameplan was any good after watching one assertion after another go up in smoke. Why don’t you sit down and make up a list. Things Proven and Things Not Proven. Then ask yourself what you’re hanging on for.
The Melting of the Polar Ice caps over the last 10 years was not caused by global Warming but by Nort Atlantic Oscillations, NAO – variations of North Atlantic Sea and Air Currents this info came from the University of Bremen and was reported in the UK new Scientist Magazine. they all said that for the next 10 years from 2009 we in Britain and Northern Europe are going to experience some extreme Winters as a result of these NAO Last year 2009 was Pretty bad this year has been awful there’s 2 inches of snow outside my Window which is unheard of at the end of February in England! the climate change Alarmists are worrying that after 10 years of this everyone will believe that climate change is all Hype and they’ll all be out of a Job!
Well said Tim!! The Arctic melting, and migrating of ice from the NAO that had occured for the last decades has since turned around from the low point in 2007. Now, the Arctic has grown 25% from the 40% loss in just a few years. Recently, areas of the Arctic measured by radar were more that twice as thick as once thought. So, it is not just total area but thickness has increased. WUWT(Anthony Watts) has a few good articles on the AO.