I
Ignatius
Guest
The Climate Change hoax has been exposed. It iss based on falsified data. Haven’t you been watching the news?
- Status
W
WFS5801
Guest
It’s sometimes worse than that. They often just lie directly. For example, we continually hear how the sea ice at the poles (Arctic and Antarctic) is “disappearing.” Simply not true.
tinyurl.com/27e5jaf
The above link (shortened using www.tinyurl.com) shows the sea ice extent for April at the South and North Poles. This is as long as they have been measuring sea ice extent with satellites. If global warming alarmists were correct, the ice should be steadily declining. Nothing is further from the truth.
In Antarctica there has only been one year with greater sea ice extent than this year – and that happened last year (2009). At 8.3 million square km, a number exceeded once (last year as mentioned) and tied once (1982), it’s obvious that Antarctic sea ice is not disappearing. You could make a better argument for 1980, when the sea ice extent in Antarctica was at 5.9 million square km. But the truth is that amount of ice decreases and increases year by year, with no apparent long-term trend.
The Arctic sea ice extent is in the lower half of the average, but it, too, has been going up down, not steadily disappearing. This year, for example, Arctic sea ice extent in April was at 14.6 million sq km, which is higher than last year (14.4) or the year before (13.9), or the year before that, or the year before that… In 1989 Arctic sea ice extent for April was lower than it is this year. So, again, no long-term trends.
So, when you see a story about “melting” ice caps, verify by using actual data. You’ll find the alarmist rant is unjustified.
S
Sideline
Guest
Okay, follow that link back and change the parameters of your search. Change April to July for the Northern Hemisphere, and change April to December for the Southern Hemisphere. Then change it to concentration instead of extent.
Imagine you have property on a lake. Every year, during the winter, it freezes over. The extent of the ice is the same: the whole lake. When you were a kid, you could skate on the lake nearly every winter. Now you can very rarely skate on it because it is ice is too thin. The concentration of the ice has gone down.
That’s what’s going on at the ice caps. When you adjust the parameters of your search, you will see that the ice is getting thinner, especially during the summer melt. Some years the ice stretches farther than usual, but the trend is towards thinner ice.
Thinning ice means warmer average temperatures.
Thinning ice could be described as “melting” don’t you think? It could also be described as “disappearing”. I agree you should look at the data, but you should also learn how to interpret the data correctly.
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
Since the earth is not the greatest good,
How do we determine unjust laws,
To protect it?
Do people believe that,
The earth is evolving,
And entering into,
A new age?
M
mchale
Guest
No… Your first mistake was getting your information about science from the News (let me guess Fox News?).
The News Media routinely gets the science behind their scientific reporting wrong. Which way they tend to get it wrong tends to be based on the political slant of the particular news outlet.
Yes, there has been some controversy about some data produced by some scientists involving climate change. It is but a small drop in the bucket of all the science that has been performed on climate change.
–
Bill
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
W
WFS5801
Guest
Okay, keeping everything the same, except for changing from Extent to Concentration, it get’s even more obvious that there is not a long-term melting trend at the poles.
For April 2009 (my mistake earlier, the April 2010 data is not out yet and I assumed it was). Antarctic Sea Ice Concentration was 5.8 million sq km, in April of 1980 it was 3.6 million square km. Much more concentrated now. Again, it’s all over the place over the years – and thirty or so years is really not enough data to make any long-term predictions anyhow – but the only year that sea ice was more concentrated in Antarctica then it was in 2009 was in 2008. So, if there is a trend in Antarctica, it’s a trend to cooling, not warming.
In the Arctic during April, 2009 concentration was 12.5 million sq km. It was 12.4 million sq km in April of 1979. So where’s the trend? The highest sea ice concentration in the Arctic was 13.1 million sq km – and that was in 1999. It has been as low as 11.9 million sq km in 1986. Again, up and down throughout the 30 years (or so) of tracking. No long-term trends.
I’ve posted data for extent, and have now posted data by concentration – month per month data. If, as global warming alarmists claim, there is a warming trend, both of these numbers should be going down month to month each year. Why aren’t they? Why is our sea ice extent and concentration basically the same – when averaged out – month per month?
It’s not disappearing, that’s simply not true.
W
WFS5801
Guest
And all this science predicted warmer global temperatures – until it was obvious that we were getting cooler global temperatures. Now the so-called “man-made” global warming has supposedly been put on hold by El Nino. But wait a minute… wasn’t the whole premise of man-made global warming that the minuscule percentage of CO2 man emits into the atmosphere (about 1/3 of 1% of all green house gasses) was somehow driving Earth’s climate? So if Earth’s natural cycles can easily overwhelm man’s green house contribution, what does that say about the whole premise?
There’s a lot of bad so-called “science” in the global warming dogma. Much of it has been shown to be suspect. But the biggest issue is showing EXACTLY how the minute amount of CO2 man emits (by comparison) somehow drives climate change.
And another question that no one has been able to answer… how do we determine the optimum temperature for the Earth – even if we could control the Earth’s temperature? We know that within the last 1,000 years (alone) that the Earth has been much warmer (MWP) and much colder (LIA) but which is “right?” Do we just throw a dart at the board and say, “this is where we should be – it must never go any higher or any lower?” As recently as the 1970s scientists were screeching about a “new ice age.” Pardon my skepticism.
The sun’s activity determines climate change. Everything else is puny in comparison.
S
Sideline
Guest
This is from the same site that you provided. They seem to disagree with you.
nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Much ado about nothing. Like the hippy dippy weather man said " the weather will continue to change off and on for a very long time".
W
WFS5801
Guest
“Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.” They seem to disagree their own data also.
W
WFS5801
Guest
It changes in cycles. Even if the Earth is in a long-term warming trend (relative to what exactly? – as we have been much warmer and much colder) – it’s still going to cycle into another ice age sooner or later. Again, what’s the optimum global temperature? Who wants to play God and decide that one?
D
DV56
Guest
Ah yes…there was a book called “The Weather Conspiracy, the Coming of the New Ice Age”. BTW, it was written by someone that is now a global warming fan. I wonder when he’ll admit his new folly.
As a meteorologist of over 30 years I get a real kick out of this global warming horse fertilizer.
There have been MUCH warmer times in the history of man. Much colder also. There are three major climate contributors. The earth’s tilt during its orbit around the sun. The shape of the earths path around the sun. And the distance from the earth to the sun in the orbital shapes. Very Very complicated. I haven’t even gotten into sunspots.
Global warming is one of the greatest myths perpatrated on the earth today.
S
Sideline
Guest
I see. They are lying. Of course.
Could you at least consider the possibility that you don’t understand this nearly as well as you think you do?
Take the following comment for instance:
Sq km is a measure of area (or extent). Concentration is the thickness of the ice. The concentration is figured in metres. The figures that you cite above are talking about the area in which the ice is at least 1.5 ms thick. They are still the measure of extent. Look back at the comparison of the extent of the ice and you will see the figures under the pictures are the same. They are both measures of extent.
The concentration of the ice varies over the total area. Some parts are thicker than others. What I am saying is that the average thickness is down.
This is a complex topic, and it’s hard for non-experts like you and I to understand all the data. If you had to answer honestly, I think you would agree you are not an expert. An expert wouldn’t make the mistake you made.
The people who are experts are telling us that the ice is disappearing. Do you really think you are knowledgeable enough to claim they are lying?
W
WFS5801
Guest
Expert or not, I assume the numbers (whatever you are saying they are supposed to mean) mean the same thing every year. Correct? So, in the Antarctic, during the month of August, in 2009, the Sea Ice Extent was measured (by those at this website not me) to be 2.9 million sq km. It’s Sea Ice Concentration was measured to be 1.9 million sq km. Correct? (I can only go by the information they provide). In 1980 (as an example), in August, Extent was 2.8 million sq km and Concentration was 1.8 million sq km. Smaller numbers in 1980 would seem to indicate that both the Extent of Sea Ice and Concentration of Sea Ice were less at that time, over 30 years ago, than they were last year. Correct? What am I missing here. How do we interpret a lesser extent and lesser concentration to mean more ice?
W
WFS5801
Guest
Agreed. And there is an agenda behind it. Your story sounds interesting, as does information about the three major climate contributors. Too bad good science is frowned in the days of political propaganda masquerading as “science.”
D
DV56
Guest
The sea ice argument is laughable. Not you,
but rather the argument made the “scientists” that have used it.
P
Psychotheosophy
Guest
Is there any unchanging (predictable) Truth,
Which all people agree on?
So,
People can change,
But Truth doesn’t?
Is it True that,
Change is inevitable?
D
DV56
Guest
If TRUTH changes, then it is no longer truth.
With climate? There is no such thing as a steady state.
M
mchale
Guest
Two thoughts.
- For whatever reason, CO2 levels, Methane Levels, and NO levels are all significantly higher now than they were 200 years ago. Now maybe most of it is natural processes, or maybe it might be that a small excess over time can add up to a lot.
- One or two years of cooler temperatures does not, in and of itself invalidate the notion that the globe is getting warmer. The climate is a complex system and greenhouse gasses are but one factor to take into account. For example 2008 and 2009 were part of an extraordinarily long solar minimum, during which the Sun actually emitted less energy than normal.
No offense, but again, I see a lot of hash being made of a few minor pieces of data. The overwhelming scientific consensus is pretty firmly in the global warming camp.
And yes, compared to natural sources, man made sources are pretty small, but when you add even a small imbalance into a balanced system, over time the system is going to get out of balance.
Yes, there have been some pretty dramatic, relatively long lived climate shifts in the last 1000 years or so. And much of that is related to the amount of sunlight that the Earth received (At least for the LIA, I think the data on sunspots is, forgive the term, spottier for the MWP). That being said, I think it is pretty clear that other factors other than the amount of sunlight we receive can have huge effects on climate. To put it in perspective, based on current research, astronomers believe that the sun has gradually brightened about 30% over how bright it was when it entered the Main Sequence, yet we are currently cooler now than we were at the time of the Dinosaurs. In addition, the joining of North and South America at the Ithmus of Panama several million years ago appear to also have had a major impact on climate.
–
Bill
- Status