Global Warming Update: Record Arctic Ice Gain

[fatjohn]

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/most-ice-gain-ever-recorded/

Wow hypocrite much?
You probably go way out of your way to say that AGW people dont tell the whole story and then you use ice gain to imply that AGW isnt real? How about you start telling the whole story?

It only gains that much because it melted even more. Heres the year round ice extent: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Artic ice is melting, if you deny that you have zero cred in my book. The only plausible non AGW approach to it is saying that it melts due to natural alterations in ocean currents.

 

[fatjohn]

A volcano can impact climate. Consider how things cooled after Mt St Helens erupted. One person won't have any impact but millions can.

Consider Australia. In southern Australia they cut down trees and modified rivers for agriculture and human use. Now the area is hit regularly with drought and major wildfires they never had problems with before.

Trees in the Rocky Mountains have been decimated for decades now by beetles (not just man) and now they too are being hit with more droughts and bad fires.

This blogpost calculates that every year enough CO2is produced from oil to blanket the united states with 5 feet of the gas. Adding the CO2 produced by coal and gas that would double to triple to over 10 feet. Alot more than that st helensplume i figure. So anti AGW people, focus on discussing the impact of co2 instead of making an argument that the world is big and we are small.

http://rodgerswriting.blogspot.be/2012/09/world-co2-production.html

 

[ronpaulfollower999]

It is true that the inverse of the OP's graph would show the Arctic sea ice melt during the summer, I still question whether humans are to blame for the recent warming period.

Looking at CO2 levels for the past 500 million years, we see that CO2 levels can be estimated at about 2,000 ppm during the age of the dinosaurs. Today, it's 400 ppm.

 

[brandon]

Wow hypocrite much?
You probably go way out of your way to say that AGW people dont tell the whole story and then you use ice gain to imply that AGW isnt real? How about you start telling the whole story?

It only gains that much because it melted even more. Heres the year round ice extent: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

Artic ice is melting, if you deny that you have zero cred in my book. The only plausible non AGW approach to it is saying that it melts due to natural alterations in ocean currents.

I think OP owes us an apology after seeing this.

 

[Lucille]

GLOBAL WARMING? MANY REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS SAY NO.
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=48834

Up front, I am a staunch Warmer skeptic. What happened to the 1-2 mile thick sheet of ice which covered half of North America during the Ice Age, which ended 10,000 years ago? It got warmer, and the ice melted, of course. Up to 2 MILES THICK OF ICE COVERED MILLIONS OF SQUARE MILES OF LAND, AND IT DISAPPEARED, FOLKS. What happened to the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted for about 400 years, 800-1200 AD, and grapes were grown on the now frigid, Arctic-like coast of the province of Labrador in Canada? It got colder, and the settlements were abandoned, of course.

Did man have anything to do with those dramatic climate change examples? Absolutely not. Yet now, we are supposed to believe that MAN is causing, largely through carbon dioxide emissions of his activities in the past 150 years, the temperature of the Earth to warm. A scant 40 years ago, similar scientists were warning the planet was heading towards a mini-Ice Age.

I don’t buy the Warmer hysteria, which is exactly what it is, and I am not alone in my skepticism. Read on.

A List of Quotations from Scientists Who Reject Global Warming...

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
--H. L. Mencken

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

This blogpost calculates that every year enough CO2is produced from oil to blanket the united states with 5 feet of the gas. Adding the CO2 produced by coal and gas that would double to triple to over 10 feet. Alot more than that st helensplume i figure. So anti AGW people, focus on discussing the impact of co2 instead of making an argument that the world is big and we are small.

http://rodgerswriting.blogspot.be/2012/09/world-co2-production.html

And Co2 is a threat how exactly?? Funny thing back when I was in school they taught us that Co2 was "green" gas. It causes plants to grow bigger and stronger. Then those plants give off oxygen as a "waste" product which helps us to survive. Guess we were really stupid back then to not realize how DANGEROUS Co2 is. We should eradicate that dangerous gas as fast as we can before we're all dead...

It is true that the inverse of the OP's graph would show the Arctic sea ice melt during the summer, I still question whether humans are to blame for the recent warming period.

Looking at CO2 levels for the past 500 million years, we see that CO2 levels can be estimated at about 2,000 ppm during the age of the dinosaurs. Today, it's 400 ppm.

And I'm sure we HUMANS were responsible for that, too...

 

[brushfire]

I have one annoyance... How did the Kettle Moraine come about? Where did the great lakes come from?

During the ice age, "fossil fuels" weren't fossilized yet (admitted exaggeration). At this point, I'm convinced of the presence of cyclical climate change, but I'm not so convinced that man kind is the cause of it. I also believe that people should not live amongst their own excrement - we should make an effort to keep our environment clean.

Where I live (and in many parts of the country) mercury emissions have had a horrible effect on the environment and polluters should be held accountable. At the same time, I'm not willing to give control to the EPA, as they've already repeatedly demonstrated the inherent overreach by government. There is also a disparity in the types of regulation on individuals vs corporations/industry. One other point, clean and efficient technologies cant make their way to our markets because of the EPA - an irony only made possible by government.

Why dont they concentrate more on getting government out of the way? China offers a government solution for everything, yet they have some of the worst pollution. Wealthy nations tend to have more options, and can afford "cleaner" technology. So why not focus more on economic growth, and not more economically asphyxiating regulations and bureaucracy?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

The first chart is showing how much the ice grew back in the winter after its summer melting. It doesn't show how much melted so we don't know if what is left is more or less than there was the year before.

The gains are trending upward over the years, so you must really think the losses are shooting way up. Care to provide a chart that demonstrates this? Otherwise, I will take the gains to mean that the Arctic is doing just fine.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Why is he only looking at seven years (there are actually eight years shown on the chart)? My chart is longer and you can see why when you expand the time frame. He is picking points which show what he wants to show. I could use his same data to show the exact opposite by simply removing the last point on his chart. Or take the last five years instead of the last eight. Now it would be showing a dramatic decline in ice.

That would mean his data was better than yours because he used 8 and you used 5.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

As for the sun, yes, it does impact our weather here. Does that rule out man impacting it as well? No, it does not. I have used this example before. Let's use the waves on a lake to represent temperatures. High wave peaks are high temperatures and low troughs are low temperatures. Some years are hotter, some are colder. These are caused by nature- the sun and the moon in the case of tides. Now man sails by in his motorboat- our activities on the planet. It causes its own waves which get added onto the existing waves. Depending on where they are in the synchronization, the natural waves become larger or smaller. The waves are still there but man's actions changed their size and shape.

You admit the sun impacts our weather, but do you admit it impacts our climate, long term? You haven't properly separated the variables in order to be able to tell that man is responsible and the sun is not.

Also, if your motorboat analogy takes place in the ocean, then I would say you need a new analogy. The energy added to the waves fades before it can affect the size of all waves in all of the ocean. It's the same thing with thinking that CO2, which makes up less than a percent of the atmosphere, and our effect on CO2 output in the last 100 or 200 years can change the entire climate and claiming it's true because "the hottest years on record all occurred within the last x amount of years".

You spend a lot of time saying that certain stats about cooling doesn't mean it's not warming, but do you ever wonder why anybody thinks it's warming in the first place? The facts you have to support that are just as shaky as the facts we use that you criticize. We've heard all of the BS about why the climate is warming and we somehow think this is good enough to make long-term predictions? The models and the methods we use are so volatile that we can't possibly make predictions that climate change proponents make. The hubris it must take to look at one set of stats and discredit it and then look at your own set of stats and think you have any better of an idea of what's going to happen 50 years from now.

In the middle of the 21st century, I'm going to look back on the time we all spent bickering about the warming of the climate and laugh because everyone was so convinced that they were right but they never really seemed committed to doing anything about it except convincing others that the world was ending. In 50 years, however, it won't matter who you are because you'll realize none of the predictions you are making now have come true. Maybe then people will see all these "sky is falling" hoaxes for what they really are. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Call me "General Skeptic". I never give any "statistics" a lot of weight because I've learned that the old saw ".. there's 3 kinds of lies - lies, damned lies, and statistics..." is true more often than not.

Being as old as I am I remember some of the same (younger) scientists telling us in the 60's how our petroleum use is causing the planet to "cool" and was already bringing on a new "ice age". They also claimed we would use ALL the remaining oil by the 1990's.

HA HA HA HA HAAAH....

Bunch of clowns, I say. We couldn't change the planet's environment significantly no matter WHAT we did. We could set every asset on fire and pollute the local areas for a short time, but then nature would clean it up. Look at Valdez (anyone remember that one?). That tanker spill was going to destroy that entire area for 100 years they said. Nope, wrong again. Valdez is a very beautiful area with lots of wildlife. Nature restored itself in a matter of a few years.

Really, HOW do you think us little ants here on this big ball can make ANY real impact? Have you looked out the window of a plane at 38,000 feet? Can you even SEE a smokestack? If you look really hard, you can see a little tiny stream of smoke emptying into this HUGE atmosphere that contains so much volume, that there's really no significant change in the chemical makeup of the atmosphere. Look at big volcanic eruptions and they put out much more pollution than we can and in the past, this planet has had periods of much greater volcanic activity, yet the planet survived and here we are.

I also question the "data" as being only a small subset of the whole. How many places are used for measurement? How do they determine the thickness of the ice? What if the ice is 20% thicker where they measure it, but a mile away (where they did not measure) it's 50% less? Most of what we call "data" is really extrapolated from a smaller set of actual measurements and then published as if they are true measurements...

Scientists are men just like you and I and guess what, they are prone to "stretching the truth" to get the research $$$...

George Carlin on Global Warming...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flpPrRO1Tho

Like just about everything in life, there is a cycle. Oil is not a non-renewable resource. It's being created underground all the time. That's why we haven't run out. Just like global cooling and peak oil, people will someday come to realize that the earth came full circle and the "warming" we experienced was really nothing out of the ordinary.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Like just about everything in life, there is a cycle. Oil is not a non-renewable resource. It's being created underground all the time. That's why we haven't run out. Just like global cooling and peak oil, people will someday come to realize that the earth came full circle and the "warming" we experienced was really nothing out of the ordinary.

Let's all learn one simple principal - QUESTION AUTHORITY !!!

Back in the 60's we heard it daily and we exercised it liberally. Today it seems everyone wants to believe every BS story that makes it into the media. They always try to scare people into making bad decisions. Asteroids, climate change, snowstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, alien invasions....

Stop believing these people. Believe your own senses...

 

[erowe1]

QUESTION AUTHORITY !!!

Who are you to tell me what to do?

 

[Zippyjuan]

That would mean his data was better than yours because he used 8 and you used 5.

You missed my 34 year chart. That would make my data better than his.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

QUESTION AUTHORITY !!!

Who are you to tell me what to do?

Haha... good. That's what I like to see. There was this crazy guy in the 60's named Dr. Timothy Leary (maybe you've heard of him). He was the one behind the "question authority" push. He'd give speeches and one of the things he would say was "question authority, even mine..."

 

[anaconda]

the warming seems to have a whole lot more correlation to sunspot activity.

^Exactly. That's why the other planets in our solar system had also been experiencing their own global warming, along with the Earth.

 

[anaconda]

If you haven't seen this yet.....

 

[green73]

Zippy loves posting gov't data.

 

[fatjohn]

And Co2 is a threat how exactly?? Funny thing back when I was in school they taught us that Co2 was "green" gas. It causes plants to grow bigger and stronger. Then those plants give off oxygen as a "waste" product which helps us to survive. Guess we were really stupid back then to not realize how DANGEROUS Co2 is. We should eradicate that dangerous gas as fast as we can before we're all dead...

And I'm sure we HUMANS were responsible for that, too...

That's exactly what i'm saying... There is a legitimate argument to be made regarding how CO2 is bad per se. There is NOT a legitimate argument to be made that we are small and the Earth is big and that we cannot have an impact on anything due to that.

However to make the argument about CO2 there is a lot that you need to understand, starting with Wien's law of blackbody radiation, the absorbing properties of CO2 over the radiative spectrum, albedo effects of the Earth and basicly every aspect of climate research. A whole lot of people missing important knowledge of one, multiple or all of these topics (like some former vice president) are are loudmouthing to much about this issue so that we unfortunately cannot hear the voices that we need to hear in this discussion.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

That's exactly what i'm saying... There is a legitimate argument to be made regarding how CO2 is bad per se. There is NOT a legitimate argument to be made that we are small and the Earth is big and that we cannot have an impact on anything due to that.

No, this "argument" that we are small and the earth is GIGANTIC is mine alone (I think...). I did work closely with PhD physics types 9 years ago and I asked one of these guys (who are WAY smarter than me) the following... "If I were able to expend the ENTIRE available resources world-wide to produce NOTHING but pollution, would we be able to destroy the environment?" After thinking about it for a week (I doubt he spent much of his time on it), he admitted that ruling out nuclear or biological, it is unlikely that we could destroy the environment using all known resources.

Now I grant you this is only little ole' me asking ONE smart scientist who did not do any kind of "controlled study" (if that were even possible), but I believe that my position is valid. This planet lacks the resources to destroy itself even with these puny little fleas called "humans".

If you can prove otherwise, please, I would love to see any kind of calculation that would dispute this theory. When you think about it, ALL of our resources come from the planet and after we transform them, go back into the planet. HOW can we possibly make a significant change in this huge ball? Even something as deadly as mercury COMES from the planet and when we are finished with it, goes back to the planet. Of course we can change the concentrations of these elements, but we can never add to them. The planet has the amount of mercury it has, and we can not change that.