An inconvenient truth

24567

Comments

  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post


    Hands Sandon, I've watched the video - Anyway, it contained little I haven't read about before. I would be interested in more studies on the physics behind supraglacial lake ice acceleration and mass balance. I agree with the video that there isn't enough information yet to be able to know the full effects of this phenomenon.



    One thing to note - Places like Byrd Glacier that experience increased ice flow dynamics aren't doing so from effects of atmospheric or ocean warming. In Greenland, perhaps, but the ice flow rate there has returned to normal, according to Faezeh Nick.



    Additionally, I understand that any item published with backing from Exxon is suspect by folks that want the information unadulterated by bias. I'm of the opinion that any information from James Hansen falls in this same category.



    To recap my position on higw in case you've searched for my previous posts on the subject, I don't think any additional studies are necessary to encourage serious reductions in pollution, I am against carbon credit schemes like cap and trade carbon dioxide emissions programs and such, and finally...



    I don't believe that there is anything - short of an epidemic wiping out 90% of the worlds' population - that can have any effect on the current or future accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere without a new form of energy being developed and used. The use of carbon based fuels will result in carbon dioxide pollutants, and energy usage isn't going to be reduced at the present and future population levels.



    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7733509.stm

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...d-ecd53cd3d320

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/in...-inconvenient/



    Thanks for your reply first off.



    Just briefly as I have only as yet followed your first link. Two billion tons of water is a lot. The first link clearly states an increase from 20 billion tons to 22 billion tons and that that had the effect of greater movement. Therefore, I don't understand why you are sure there are no human induced global warming effects involved? Even though the article states it's not climate related for the natural melt-water to happen as a perfectly normal event, I would be surprised if they believed that the 'increase' was not climate related, as this has been a recognized fact of CC.

    "It should be stressed the events seen at Byrd are not of themselves climate-related. The lakes probably flood and drain on a regular basis that has nothing to do with atmospheric or ocean warming."~article



    I will get back to you as I follow your links and other questions regarding your reply.



    The second link, even I can discern to be a blatant misrepresentation of scientific knowledge. This will explain why the same old arguments, constantly used to mislead the public about fluctuations, notably in ocean temperatures are factually incorrect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M



    Your third link sustains your argument no better than the previous two.



    To say it was scant of details and facts would be an understatement. That's not altogether bad though, as facts are used by those who espouse your thinking to confound and misinform with an uninspiring and error ridden monotony. (please don't take any personal offense at that, it's not directed at you personally)



    Take this as an example-For another, Gore’s “massive destabilization” mechanism for which the earthquakes were a supposed bellwether (meltwater lubrication of the flow channel) has been shown to be ineffective at producing long-term changes in glacier flow rate (e.g. (Joughin et al., 2008; van de Wal et al., 2008)





    You say "I believe it to be a rebuttal of critical analysis of statements made by Al Gore?" regarding the video I posted, which if it does contradict anything of Al Gore's, please explain to me what exactly and why you make no other comments on those two videos. They backup what Al Gore is saying not the contrary. I've seen things dismissed before, but for me that takes the biscuit!



    I'm not sure about cap and trade, I simply don't know enough about it to make a reasonable judgement one way or the other. But I do support serious efforts being taken to deal with CC and for all I know it's the right decision.



    I hope it doesn't take a pandemic along the lines you are talking to prevent such high CO2 emissions. Things are bad, especially China building so many new coal plants. Nuclear is put forward as are other new 'green technologies'. Even nuclear has a limited supply capability and fossil fuels remain the main building block for our production of energy and goods.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post


    Additionally, I understand that any item published with backing from Exxon is suspect by folks that want the information unadulterated by bias. I'm of the opinion that any information from James Hansen falls in this same category.



    James Hansen is a government scientist who happens to work for NASA.



    Dr. Hansen has published extensively in the well respected highly regarded peer reviewed climate science literature.



    On the other hand, ExxonMobil is a member of the fossil fuel club, which makes entertaining propaganda in the form of TeeVee commercials. This type of advertisement is quite popular these days. I wonder why?
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member


    Inhofe's website is not to be trusted by anyone other than Inhofe.



    Quote:

    World Climate Report, a newsletter edited by Patrick Michaels, was produced by the Greening Earth Society,[1] a non-profit organization created by the Western Fuels Association.[2]



    A global glacier index update



    Warm reception to Antarctic warming story
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    Inhofe's website is not to be trusted by anyone other than Inhofe.



    How appropriate he'd say amongst other things-



    In a 2006 interview with the Tulsa World newspaper, Inhofe said regarding the environmentalist movement, "It kind of reminds... I could use the Third Reich, the Big Lie... You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their [the environmentalists'] strategy... A hot summer has nothing to do with global warming. Let's keep in mind it was just three weeks ago that people were saying, 'Wait a minute; it is unusually cool...." He then said, "Everything on which they [the environmentalists] based their story, in terms of the facts, has been refuted scientifically."\
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    How appropriate he'd say amongst other things-



    In a 2006 interview with the Tulsa World newspaper, Inhofe said regarding the environmentalist movement, "It kind of reminds... I could use the Third Reich, the Big Lie... You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their [the environmentalists'] strategy... A hot summer has nothing to do with global warming. Let's keep in mind it was just three weeks ago that people were saying, 'Wait a minute; it is unusually cool...." He then said, "Everything on which they [the environmentalists] based their story, in terms of the facts, has been refuted scientifically."\



    Climate contrarian Pat Michaels refused to disclose funding in Vermont court case



    CLIMATE SKEPTIC REFUSES TO DISCLOSE FUNDING



    These guys are as thick as thieves. They're a dime a dozen, literally, that's how much they spend on their own climate science research.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    Climate contrarian Pat Michaels refused to disclose funding in Vermont court case



    CLIMATE SKEPTIC REFUSES TO DISCLOSE FUNDING



    These guys are as thick as thieves. They're a dime a dozen, literally, that's how much they spend on their own climate science research.



    Indeed. I followed some of the links in your links- ( frank-which 3 in a post of yours above aren't working properly- I'll delete this when you correct them) This from The New York Times-



    Dr. Michaels told Western business leaders last year that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists’ global warming research. So a Colorado utility organized a collection campaign for him last week and has raised at least $150,000 in donations and pledges.



    The utility, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, based in Sedalia, Colo., has given Dr. Michaels $100,000 of its own, said Stanley R. Lewandowski Jr., its general manager. Mr. Lewandowski said that one company planned to give $50,000 and that a third planned to contribute to Dr. Michaels next year.



    “We cannot allow the discussion to be monopolized by the alarmists,” Mr. Lewandowski wrote in a July 17 letter to 50 other utilities. He also called on other electric cooperatives to undertake a counterattack on “alarmist” scientists and specifically Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth,” which lays much of the blame for global warming on heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.

    ~New York Times

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/sc...erland&emc=rss



    Your other links show an even greater scale of iniquities.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    Indeed. I followed your links in the links- ( frank-which 3 in a post of yours above aren't working properly- I'll delete this when you correct them) This from The New York Times-



    Dr. Michaels told Western business leaders last year that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists? global warming research. So a Colorado utility organized a collection campaign for him last week and has raised at least $150,000 in donations and pledges.



    The utility, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, based in Sedalia, Colo., has given Dr. Michaels $100,000 of its own, said Stanley R. Lewandowski Jr., its general manager. Mr. Lewandowski said that one company planned to give $50,000 and that a third planned to contribute to Dr. Michaels next year.



    ?We cannot allow the discussion to be monopolized by the alarmists,? Mr. Lewandowski wrote in a July 17 letter to 50 other utilities. He also called on other electric cooperatives to undertake a counterattack on ?alarmist? scientists and specifically Al Gore?s movie ?An Inconvenient Truth,? which lays much of the blame for global warming on heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide.

    ~New York Times

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/sc...erland&emc=rss



    The 1st one in my previous post was bad, it's been corrected. I usually click on them myself, and caught it, not quite in time though. Thanks.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    The 1st one in my previous post was bad, it's been corrected. I usually click on them myself, and caught it, not quite in time though. Thanks.



    Where you have in bold letters World Climate Report you have 3 wiki links (post# 24) they're the ones I couldn't access. Maybe as there quotes, I don't know but it's ok anyway. I can still wiki them.



    More info on Inhofe relating to Bush and Hansen. http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/2...ptic-muzzling/



    How will Meltwater Pulse 1A work out?
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies interviewed....greetings!... http://www.suprememastertv.com/bbs/b...l=&url=link3_0
  • taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    My first link was included to support that glacial flow is present in areas other than ones identified as ones with possible climate causes.



    http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/...rdglacier.html





    My second link is about Hansen and the media circus he attracts. Hansen is too interested in being controversial to be relevant. He's adopted the position he now has as a career, which puts him squarely in the same camp as Exxon - monetarily invested in maintaining his position instead of invested in furthering knowledge on the subject. I don't see how anyone can take him seriously at this point. The link to the interview with his supervisor at NASA illustrates one aspect of the issue, as does this link:



    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/...skeptics-camp/



    I suggest that the information Hansen provides is not unique, so supporting the theory of higw doesn't need to include his rhetoric. Arguments pro or con are more professional without his references.



    The third link is only to support the work of Faezeh Nick - investigations concluding with ?Our results imply that the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland?s outlet glaciers are transient and should not be extrapolated into the future.? Ice movement isn't understood, it's now being researched and I believe folks using incomplete scientific knowledge as evidence to encourage political policy is disingenuous.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post


    My first link was included to support that glacial flow is present in areas other than ones identified as ones with possible climate causes.



    http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/...rdglacier.html





    My second link is about Hansen and the media circus he attracts. Hansen is too interested in being controversial to be relevant. He's adopted the position he now has as a career, which puts him squarely in the same camp as Exxon - monetarily invested in maintaining his position instead of invested in furthering knowledge on the subject. I don't see how anyone can take him seriously at this point. The link to the interview with his supervisor at NASA illustrates one aspect of the issue, as does this link:



    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/...skeptics-camp/



    I suggest that the information Hansen provides is not unique, so supporting the theory of higw doesn't need to include his rhetoric. Arguments pro or con are more professional without his references.



    The third link is only to support the work of Faezeh Nick - investigations concluding with “Our results imply that the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland’s outlet glaciers are transient and should not be extrapolated into the future.” Ice movement isn't understood, it's now being researched and I believe folks using incomplete scientific knowledge as evidence to encourage political policy is disingenuous.



    Taskiss, I'm not in anyway trying to sound rude, indeed I encourage and respect your interest in this area. However, even the very basics of your statements show a somewhat limited level of understanding. Please, let me explain why I say that, rather than you thinking its an Ad Hominem attack.



    Glacial flow is 100% normal, nobody is arguing that it's anything but. The amount of glacial flow depends on many factors and is difficult to accurately predict as has already been clearly stated. Meltwater pulse 1A, which was when sea levels rose at a rapid pace between 14.2-14.7 thousand years ago by about 25 meters. There is growing scientific evidence that the causes behind that are the same causes involved today in glacial movement and collapse. This area is being studied and making predictions on exactly how and exactly when sea-level rise will be attributed to this is still being researched. But to ignore it is reckless at best, IMHO.



    franksargent has IMHO ripped to shreds the credibility of your information supported by Inhofe and others, who have very close ties with big oil/coal etc. Given your choice to believe the likes of Inhofe, I can only presume you will have no problem with anyone saying AGW is good for the environment and anything to the contrary is lefty propaganda, inspired by the Third Reich. Not that I think you would make that comparison, but it's surprises me that you would align yourself so closely with someone who does.



    Again your last point is that data cannot be projected into the future because things have 'seemingly', on the most basic of levels, in one study, temporarily settled back to normal is one of the deniers main arguing points as was highlighted in an earlier video I linked to and that has been discussed widely amongst scientists, since science began!



    One thing you should be aware of is that the number of scientists that study CC that identify it as a serious crisis, is growing and has been since the science has been gathered. Not at all the other way round. There are people who join the likes of Inhofe but they are not representative of a wider trend, indeed quite the opposite.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    Where you have in bold letters World Climate Report you have 3 wiki links (post# 24) they're the ones I couldn't access. Maybe as there quotes, I don't know but it's ok anyway. I can still wiki them.



    More info on Inhofe relating to Bush and Hansen. http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/2...ptic-muzzling/



    How will Meltwater Pulse 1A work out?



    Quote taken from wikipedia, World Climate Report, first sentence.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    Where you have in bold letters World Climate Report you have 3 wiki links (post# 24) they're the ones I couldn't access. Maybe as there quotes, I don't know but it's ok anyway. I can still wiki them.



    More info on Inhofe relating to Bush and Hansen. http://climateprogress.org/2009/01/2...ptic-muzzling/



    How will Meltwater Pulse 1A work out?



    I don't think that another Meltwater Pulse 1A like event is possible at this time or even in this century.



    25,000 mm/500 years = 50 mm/year (mind you it's an overall average, I have the relevant papers where at the resolution of the samples, the maxima was ~200mm/year, higher resolution samples may have shown even higher maxima, TBD)



    Current sea level rise



    Quote:

    Current sea level rise has occured at a mean rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past century,[1][2] and more recently at rates estimated near 2.8 ± 0.4[3] to 3.1 ± 0.7[4] mm per year (1993-2003).



  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post


    My first link was included to support that glacial flow is present in areas other than ones identified as ones with possible climate causes.



    http://www.climatechange.umaine.edu/...rdglacier.html





    My second link is about Hansen and the media circus he attracts. Hansen is too interested in being controversial to be relevant. He's adopted the position he now has as a career, which puts him squarely in the same camp as Exxon - monetarily invested in maintaining his position instead of invested in furthering knowledge on the subject. I don't see how anyone can take him seriously at this point. The link to the interview with his supervisor at NASA illustrates one aspect of the issue, as does this link:



    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/...skeptics-camp/



    I suggest that the information Hansen provides is not unique, so supporting the theory of higw doesn't need to include his rhetoric. Arguments pro or con are more professional without his references.



    The third link is only to support the work of Faezeh Nick - investigations concluding with “Our results imply that the recent rates of mass loss in Greenland’s outlet glaciers are transient and should not be extrapolated into the future.” Ice movement isn't understood, it's now being researched and I believe folks using incomplete scientific knowledge as evidence to encourage political policy is disingenuous.



    First link is a research proposal?



    Critique of Hansen on the website of a politician well known for being in the pocket of Bil Oil. Go figure. I'll take Hansen for his word as shown in his body of publications/works in the highly regarded well respected peer reviewed climate science literature.



    Roy Spencer



    Closing comment is a non sequiter. As the current rate of sea level rise is greater than what GCM's can currently account for (by ~50%). This has already been mentioned by myself in the other CC/GW/AGW thread as "vexing".
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    [QUOTE=franksargent;1412160]I don't think that another Meltwater Pulse 1A like event is possible at this time or even in this century.



    25,000 mm/500 years = 50 mm/year (mind you it's an overall average, I have the relevant papers where at the resolution of the samples, the maxima was ~200mm/year, righer resolution samples may have shown even higher maxima, TBD)



    Current sea level rise[/QUOTE



    200mm a year would be huge and any higher even more so.



    The correlation between summer melting and glacier movement described for folks like me well here.



    "A paper by Göran Ekström et al. shows that the increased speed of Greenland glaciers occurs in distinct lurches (observed as micro "ice-quakes") that are strongly seasonal, with the greatest number occuring in late summer. This provides evidence that meltwater plays an important role in the acceleration of Greenland's glaciers. Essentially, the idea is that surface melting that occurs in the summer can make its way quickly down to the glacier bed, lubricating the bed and allowing the glaciers to slide more rapidly. The "ice quakes" occur because the rough bedrock surface causes the glaciers to stick; they only accelerate when enough hydraulic pressure has built up to help float the glacier over the bumps. This is strong evidence that climate, not merely "internal ice sheet dynamics", has contributed to the recent increases in Greenland's glaciers. Indeed, a doubling of the rate of quakes has occurred over the past five years, just as the aerial extent of surface melting has increased."~ RealClimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=276
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    HS, you may find this link interesting.



    The hunt for planet Earth's oldest ice



    Quote:

    But scientists from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) believe the valleys and ravines of the Gamburtsev subglacial mountains harbour the oldest ice on the planet.



    EDIT: U.S.-led, International Research Team Confirms Alps-like Mountain Range Exists under East Antarctic Ice Sheet
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    HS, you may find this link interesting.



    The hunt for planet Earth's oldest ice



    Amazing, thanks!. Robin Bell is leading the expedition and twittering. Updates appear here http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/pi/gambit/
  • taskisstaskiss Posts: 1,212member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post


    Taskiss, I'm not in anyway trying to sound rude, indeed I encourage and respect your interest in this area. However, even the very basics of your statements show a somewhat limited level of understanding. Please, let me explain why I say that, rather than you thinking its an Ad Hominem attack.



    I know why you say that, Hands Sandon - you want to discredit the opinions that differ from yours.



    My links ... the entirety of my posts ... are the result of analysis of professionally published information, no original work or conclusions on my part.



    SO, you see, the accusation that I have a "somewhat limited level of understanding" on the subject actually is a reflection of your disagreement with professionals in the field in question, not any reflection on my understanding of the science at all. It is, of course, your right to disagree, but you really should be aware of whom you disagree with. I have no personal investment in the subject, I don't think it makes me look "smarter" or anything to disagree with others, I just read what I read and conclude what I conclude based on what credibility is earned by the authors of the studies and papers I read. I give more credence to facts and not alarmists who throw accusations around like flower petals at a wedding, so that's why Hanson is ignored. Let him continue trying to get attention by making unfounded claims like "1998 the hottest year on record". I'll continue reading articles that don't fabricate the data for the graphs they use.



    Like I said earlier in this thread - I just read what's written and try to ignore the politics. I can understand how attractive it might be to feel superior ... to feel above the unwashed and unlearned, but I would caution against throwing in with politicians when science is the topic.



    In the end, the news that doesn't get published on CNN is more interesting than the news that does -



    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    Quote:

    total ice extent is now close to the mean extent for the reference period (1979 to 2000).

    ...

    Because of cooler than average temperatures, Arctic sea ice extent at the end of April 2009 was within the expected range of natural variability.



    If the fact that arctic sea ice had increased in the last several years been published, I would consider the topic devoid of politics - but since it's not been advertised and we're still doing the "save the poor polar bears" thing, well, I am forced to conclude that politics is running the show. That makes the claims suspect, at least as far as I'm concerned.
  • hands sandonhands sandon Posts: 5,270member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post


    I know why you say that, Hands Sandon - you want to discredit the opinions that differ from yours.



    My links ... the entirety of my posts ... are the result of analysis of professionally published information, no original work or conclusions on my part.



    SO, you see, the accusation that I have a "somewhat limited level of understanding" on the subject actually is a reflection of your disagreement with professionals in the field in question, not any reflection on my understanding of the science at all. It is, of course, your right to disagree, but you really should be aware of whom you disagree with. I have no personal investment in the subject, I don't think it makes me look "smarter" or anything to disagree with others, I just read what I read and conclude what I conclude based on what credibility is earned by the authors of the studies and papers I read. I give more credence to facts and not alarmists who throw accusations around like flower petals at a wedding, so that's why Hanson is ignored. Let him continue trying to get attention by making unfounded claims like "1998 the hottest year on record". I'll continue reading articles that don't fabricate the data for the graphs they use.



    Like I said earlier in this thread - I just read what's written and try to ignore the politics. I can understand how attractive it might be to feel superior ... to feel above the unwashed and unlearned, but I would caution against throwing in with politicians when science is the topic.



    In the end, the news that doesn't get published on CNN is more interesting than the news that does -



    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    If the fact that arctic sea ice had increased in the last several years been published, I would consider the topic devoid of politics - but since it's not been advertised and we're still doing the "save the poor polar bears" thing, well, I am forced to conclude that politics is running the show. That makes the claims suspect, at least as far as I'm concerned.



    I don't have time, this minute, to respond in full to your post. So briefly I'll give you a link of the two graphs which amounted to ....wait for it ....0.02 degrees change, concerning Al Gore's statement that 1998 was the hottest year on record, in the US lower 48 states. Not exactly a huge change at all there.

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007...ly_disprov.php

    Must go, later



    Here are the global highest temperature over the last century, and yes they do include, 1998.



    " Image to right: 2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s, according to NASA scientists. 1998, 2002 and 2003 and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years. Credit: NASA"

    http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/env...5_warmest.html



    Like I was saying earlier things are being manipulated. But you have every right to believe what you do. I listen to those who produce the information and who have the desire to treat the data with enough respect to review it carefully and in relationship to the broad wealth of data, not just cherry picking. Cherry picking your science, will convince some of those who have reasons to be against preventative measures, but they'll be increasingly ignored as a group. Indeed, over time only the most misinformed conspiracy minded individuals and groups will be still willing to do so IMHO. I'm sure you disagree, but wait another ten years or so and see if I'm right. An accurate interpretation of the science will become even harder over time to deny, just like we all know now the earth is, roughly speaking, round.
  • franksargentfranksargent Posts: 4,694member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Taskiss View Post


    My links ... the entirety of my posts ... are the result of analysis of professionally published information, no original work or conclusions on my part.



    SO, you see, the accusation that I have a "somewhat limited level of understanding" on the subject actually is a reflection of your disagreement with professionals in the field in question, not any reflection on my understanding of the science at all. It is, of course, your right to disagree, but you really should be aware of whom you disagree with. I have no personal investment in the subject, I don't think it makes me look "smarter" or anything to disagree with others, I just read what I read and conclude what I conclude based on what credibility is earned by the authors of the studies and papers I read. I give more credence to facts and not alarmists who throw accusations around like flower petals at a wedding, so that's why Hanson is ignored. Let him continue trying to get attention by making unfounded claims like "1998 the hottest year on record". I'll continue reading articles that don't fabricate the data for the graphs they use.



    Like I said earlier in this thread - I just read what's written and try to ignore the politics. I can understand how attractive it might be to feel superior ... to feel above the unwashed and unlearned, but I would caution against throwing in with politicians when science is the topic.



    In the end, the news that doesn't get published on CNN is more interesting than the news that does -



    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    If the fact that arctic sea ice had increased in the last several years been published, I would consider the topic devoid of politics - but since it's not been advertised and we're still doing the "save the poor polar bears" thing, well, I am forced to conclude that politics is running the show. That makes the claims suspect, at least as far as I'm concerned.



    Not so, for if it were "professionally published information" you'd be able to give the proper citation reference, publication, volume, etceteras.



    The only acceptable place for critiques of climate science research in the form of technical publications of the climate science is in itself in said same technical publications also known as highly regarded well respected peer reviewed climate science publications. I've mentioned this now at least half a dozen times, and each time it's been completely ignored. I wonder why?



    That the Denialists/Contrarians can not do this is undeniable proof that they can not do so, for obvious reasons. Their counterarguments could not, would not, can not, withstand the peer reviewed process.



    The politics? You have repeatedly posted links to the politics, and this has now been pointed out on numerous, no many, occasions.



    All the other links you've posted, have been in the form of the well known non sequiter. Define arctic ice, because the polar ice cap has reached the two lowest minima in 2007 and 2008, since the satellite era began (1979). No getting around that fact.



    Like your last link, let's see where we are when it really counts, around the fall equinox;



    Quote:

    Arctic sea ice extent declined quite slowly in April; as a result, total ice extent is now close to the mean extent for the reference period (1979 to 2000). The thin spring ice cover nevertheless remains vulnerable to summer melt.



    If I were to wear a tinfoil hat, which I don't, I'd almost think that we've (meaning you and me specifically) have danced this dance before here in PO. Hmm ...
Sign In or Register to comment.