Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
- Accidentally Released - and Incredibly Embarrassing - Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in 'Naked Short Selling'
- Apocalypse Fairly Soon: The Moment of Truth in Europe
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- NDAA's 'Indefinite Detention' Provisions Unconstitutional, says Judge
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- Accidentally Released - and Incredibly Embarrassing - Documents Show How Goldman et al Engaged in 'Naked Short Selling'
- The Rise of the New Economy Movement
- Preying on Poverty: How Government and Corporations Use the Poor as Piggy Banks
- The Organic Watergate: Alarming Report Reveals USDA's Cozy Relationship with Corporate Agribusinesses in 'Organics'
- Updated: Under Pressure, TED Releases 'Income Inequality' Talk
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Voyage into the Great Arctic Meltdown
THE vast Arctic sea ice which spreads across the North Pole could disappear during the summer within a decade or two - or even by 2013 - leading scientists are warning.
The Canadian Coast Guard's strongest icebreaker, the Louis S. St Laurent, took the Herald and an ABC Four Corners crew with a team of scientists going to the Arctic at the beginning of this summer's melt in July to explore the extraordinary changes there first hand.
Only a few years ago, climate modellers predicted the sea ice would not disappear in summer until at least the end of the century.
"Then they said 2070, and then they said 2050 and then they said 2030," said Robie Macdonald, a leading Canadian oceanographer on board the Louis.
"Not only do I see the change, but it's like they're moving the goalposts toward me and it's an amazing thing," he said.
The team on board the Louis are some of the thousands of scientists from 60 nations working to draw attention to the rapid changes in the Arctic and Antarctic during International Polar Year.
The icebreaker's route took us through thick sea ice at the entrance to the fabled Northwest Passage where over the centuries many navigators perished, most famously Sir John Franklin, a former governor of Tasmania.
Last year the Northwest Passage was virtually ice free for the first time in memory when the Arctic sea ice shrank to its lowest level since satellite observations began.
The US Interior Secretary, Dirk Kempthorne, announced in May the drastic loss of Arctic sea ice had forced him to list the polar bear as an endangered species because their populations could collapse within a few decades.
Hopes the sea ice would return to robust levels after last year's record low are unlikely to be realised, according to the latest figures from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre. While this year's melt is not expected to shatter last year's record, the sea ice is already significantly below average as the melt season peaks.
"We might see an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2030 - within some of our lifetimes," said Mark Serreze, a geographer at the snow and ice data centre.
"There are some scientists out there who think that even might be optimistic."
The loss of the sea ice in summer would be unprecedented in human history, said Don Perovich a geophysicist with the US Army's Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.
"As near as we can tell looking at the historical record, there's been ice in the Arctic in the summer for at least 16 million years," he said.
"There's a group that makes a very strong case that in 2012 or 2013 we'll have an ice-free [summer] Arctic - as soon as that. It's astounding what's happened," said Dr Ted Scambos, a glaciologist from the snow and ice data centre.
The melt is leading Arctic nations, including Canada, Russia and the US, to seriously examine new shipping routes through the Arctic - including the Northwest Passage - and the potential expansion of huge oil and gas fields.
"As the ice recedes, it's opening up not only the Arctic passage but all the resources in the Arctic Ocean," said Scott Borgerson, from the US Council on Foreign Relations.
Last year's melt was produced by a "perfect storm" of natural weather patterns and rising temperatures in the Arctic caused by global warming. The Arctic is warming at twice the average rate of the rest of the planet and the sea ice is considered by many scientists to be crucial for monitoring the speed of global climate change.
The more the bright white sea ice melts, the more the dark Arctic Ocean absorbs sunlight, in turn melting more sea ice and feeding back into global warming.
The disappearance of the sea ice could have serious ramifications for the earth's climate and weather patterns, scientists say, explaining it would be like leaving the refrigerator door open on the planet.
"We could think of the Arctic as the refrigerator of the northern hemisphere climate system," Dr Serreze said.
"What we're doing by getting rid of that sea ice is radically changing the nature of that refrigerator. We're making it much less efficient. But everything is connected together so what happens up there eventually influences what happens in other parts of the globe."
Scientists are rapidly working to understand how much the loss of the summer sea ice might change weather patterns amid fears it will cause extreme storms and rainfall in some regions and prolong drought in others.
"The Arctic really can feed back into the global climate system," said Dr Macdonald, who has worked with the UN's peak scientific body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "You know what happens when you get feedbacks - you get surprises and we don't like surprises."
The Louis' ice specialist, Erin Clark, explained that much of the ice at the entrance to the Northwest Passage this July was "first-year ice", frozen over just last year, and it would be prone to melting. The extent of this year's melt will not be known until September and scientists are worried that with six weeks still left in the melt season, this thin first-year ice could be vulnerable to rapid loss.
"A race has developed between the waning sunlight and the weakened ice," the report of the national snow and ice data centre for the end of July explains.
Despite a colder winter in parts of the Arctic and cooler temperatures in late July, the size of the sea ice is expected to shrink to levels close to the second or third lowest on record by September, according to the centre.
Researchers are trying to understand how much of the melting is due to the extreme natural variability in the northern polar climate system and how much is due to global warming caused by humans. The Arctic Oscillation climate pattern, which plays a big part in the weather patterns in the northern hemisphere, has been in "positive" mode in recent decades bringing higher temperatures to the Arctic.
Dr Igor Polyakov, an oceanographer from the International Arctic Research Centre in Fairbanks, Alaska, explained that natural variability as well as global warming is crucial to understanding the ice melt. "A combination of these two forces led to what we observe now and we should not ignore either forces" he said.
The consensus among scientists is that while the natural variability in the Arctic is an important contributor to climate change there, the climate models cannot explain the rapid loss of sea ice without including "human-induced" global warming. This means human activity such as burning fossil fuels and land clearing which are releasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
"There have been numerous models run that have looked at that and basically they can't reproduce the ice loss we've had with natural variability," said Dr Perovich. "You have to add a carbon dioxide warming component to it."
As the sea ice fails to recover, there are concerns it will become one of the "tipping points" pushing the planet to faster climate change.
A number of scientific papers are raising concerns that global warming, especially in the Arctic, will begin to thaw some of the vast areas of permafrost in the Arctic regions, especially in Siberia and Alaska.
If that happens infrastructure including roads, railways, bridges and pipelines could begin to collapse. More importantly, scientists say, it's possible that large amounts of the carbon dioxide and methane that are trapped in the permafrost will be released into the atmosphere, producing another feedback that will increase global warming.
The Arctic is a sentinel of change, Dr Macdonald explained on board the Louis, and urged everyone to take notice. "We should care in the sense that what happens here is coming to us and sometimes, you know, a warning is a helpful thing to mobilise people," he said.
"If it takes the iconic polar bear for people to say maybe we need to do something, that's a good thing."
Copyright © 2008 Fairfax Digital

101 Comments so far
Show AllBegin the new age now!
Legalize Hemp!
If we converted just 6% of the worlds arable land to hemp farming, we could grow enough hemp to replace all paper from our precious forests, all the fuel we need, fiber better than cotton with no pesticides, and 10,000 other products including plastics, all the while sequestering deadly carbon dioxide and reducing pollution.
Turns out the answers to our man-made dilemma have been with us in nature since before we started fouling everything up.
Huzzah!
OH-OH. I just finished blogging on two other threads here about this issue and ~MIMICCS~, ~SIGURDUR11~ and ~GEO552~ all worte that this Arctic thaw is BOGUS. The Arctic is not thawing they claim and offer links to prove they are correct. The links they offered however are highly questionable.
I'll go with this report and the words of the scientists and the author of this fine article. What most of the scientsts do not get into suffeciently is: ___ (is because of the thawing Arctic, the methane gas which is currently frozen in the Arctic's perma-forst and lakes, will release into our atmosphere.)
That Arctic methane release will not kill us. IT WILL however trigger global warming like we have never imagined. Here's why. ___ Currently the methane in our atmosphere is 1,800 part per billion. (1,800ppb.) That current amount of methane in the atmosphere is troubling, according to atmospheric and climate scientists.
Troubling? ___There is __(3,000 times)__ that amount of methane safely locked up in the Arctic's permafrost. Therefore, when it releases, we will multiply the 1,800ppb, by 3,000, and have __(5,400,000ppb)__ of methane in our atmosphere. That will be more than troubling.
Now I have posted these links here on other threads, ___ SEVERAL times. ~MIMICCS~ terms them as "infamous links". I refer to them as perhaps the most important articles ever published since human's recorded history.
It takes about three minutes to read each of them. If the reader doesn't have a reading comprehension malady, they can see that indeed there may be nothing humanity currently faces of more importance. Here they are, and the information in each link supports and compliments the others.
http://www.energybulletin.net/3647.html
Http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080423_methane.html
Also, Dr. ~Michael J.Benton, the distinguished vertebrate paleontologist, has publshed a book titled, "When Life Nearly Died". It tells precicely how life on Earth nearly did die out millions of years ago, and he states that what is presently occurring with our climate, can easily result in that disaster once again.
The fact is, we don't have the time to argue it, or debate it, or wait until 2012 to act and attempt to prevent the Arctic's methane from "burping" out. For when it does, there will be no turning back, no do-overs. In fact, we may have already waited too long. We'll see.
Someone on another thread complained that CD commenters are deserting in droves because the comments are so relentlessly negative.
I am chastened by this thought, and thus resolve to see the positive side of every article.
Here, I cite the fact that abundant natural resources are becoming available for multinational corporations to pillage and harvest! Hooray!
The glass is half-full! Half-full of what, I'd rather not say. But whatever it is, it won't be "on the rocks" for much longer.
For those readers who are not Native American or other tribal extraction . Native American History of the "pre-Contact era" that period prior to 1492, is important to understand.
The Native Peoples of North, Central and South America experienced several catastrophic events which formed the societies that the Europeans Encountered when they met them. All of them by that time were practicing what is known as "Three Sisters Agriculture", and were living quite well and in harmony with the environment.
Evidence points toward the Native People having learned the hard way that living in harmony with Nature was essential to survival.
Ancient evidence still exists in the Ohio, and Mississippi River Valleys, as well as locations in the Deep South US, where great civilizations developed and then collapsed, all of the evidence points to environmental disasters, or collapses.
The Maya of Central American also experienced a major collapse long before the Spanish. And the evidence now shows that it was as a result of the populace over taxing the surrounding environment, denuding the forests and disrupting even the flow of waters in the streams and they did so at their own peril.
Evidence also shows that they survived these disasters and learned or better yet re-learned how to live in harmony with their environment. It wasn't until the Europeans came and brought with them the same attitudes that they exercised in Europe and here we are once again. This time for us (the Nat Ams) we may have to carry them along with us, and they are a hard group to understand.
On the one hand they believe that their "God" gave them dominion over the Earth; with the Order to "be fruitful and multiply and subdue the Earth", and on the other the are very slow to give that approach up, even in light of harsh evidence that they should.
They are much like the White Hunter who bragged that he would go an "kill a Bear" in the story my tribes knows as "Bear Crap in the Woods"
The "hunter" did not come home for several
days and his friends went looking for him where they found him in a tree, very thirsty and hungry. His friends who had gone looking for him asked him what he was doing there. He had to be honest (probably was not used to that) and confessed that he "tracked the Bear for awhile, but when he realized the Bear had -back trailed him---and was tracking him----it was too late and to save himself he had been forced to climb the tree and "stay there for several days" to avoid becoming "Bear Crap in the Woods".........
Our Grandmother the Earth is much like the Bear, she cannot be subdued, you must learn to live in harmony with her; for if she does not smother you in your sleep----you may end up having to climb a tree (that is if you can find one )...........
It may also be that the people who are intelligent enough to realize that they must live in harmony with the environment---may very well be the one's who survive--- the ones who do not.
Thanks for your time....
Which thread was that ~Little Brother~? I'd like to go there.
The reason so many are deserting Commmon Dreams in droves, is due to their being blocked by the "WORD PRESS" feature. I'm in E-mail contact with several prior bloggers, who now cannot get on to post comments here becasue "Word Press" won't allow them to post comments. ~Kathyodat, BeFOrKids, Peaceman~, etc, there are many.
And ~MIMICCS~ is offering links here which are directly connected to "Word Press". I've been blocked twice and asked the ~Common Dreams Webmaster~ to assist and he did.
Good day.
Climate change, especially as caused by humans, is no longer debatable. The deniers can and will continue to mess about expressing their denial, but to no consequence.
We can no longer afford to listen to or read their thoughts on the subject of denial. It is time to press forward with all possible dispatch!
Instead of beating ourselves into oblivion trying to answer their denials, we must move to change how we live on Earth and do it quickly.
There is only one way we can do that...Earth must become first in all our things and thoughts, deeds and decisions...or humans, like so many other species before ours, will experience extinction. The democrats and republicans are no longer able to lead us in this journey.
We alone (the so-called intelligent ones) have the ability to grow, mature and learn from our mistakes. It matters not to Earth, but it ought to matter to us!
And just think how much energy and fuel (oil, coal, etc.) we could save by turning off (permanently) no fewer than 33% of the outdoor nighttime lights now shining all over America every single night wasting $5 million per night and contributing to global warming! It is something we could do starting tonight!
Make a map of the wasteful lights in your community and work to turn them off.
http://www.darkskyinitiative.org
Ye Ol' Stargeezer
http://virakkraft.com/climateyear.doc
Kem:
The links aren't questionable, they are how it is. The ice in the Arctic today is at the same level as 1979, and in fact as a mass is larger than the level in 1940.
Native Son:
You are correct that there were civlizations established and then vanished. And prob due to weather extremes. During the Little Ice Age, there was widespread frosts as far south as Texas in the US. That would have been devestating for agriculture at that time, and it appears from fossil records that these people cultivated the land.
The cycles of the planet will continue today as they have in the past. Carbon levels have changed, temperature levels have changed. There is nothing static about our climate, never has been and never will be.
Hi there ~SIG11~ I see you are still on the climate change kick. As stated on the other thread, (climate change and global warming) are closely related, but SEPERATE issues.
Is this fella wrong ~Sigurdur11~?
~James Hanson~, the Director of NASA'S Goddard Space Studies, stated last year. "The reason so much of the Arctic ice melted so SUDDENLY, is that it is reaching the TIPPING POINT, that we have been warning about for the past several years."
Built for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force to serve as a supply ship for isolated, far-flung Arctic RCMP detachments, St. Roch was also designed to serve when frozen in for the winter, as a floating detachment, with its constables mounting dog sled patrols from the ship. Between 1929 and 1939 St. Roch made three voyages to the Arctic. Between 1940 and 1942 St. Roch navigated the Northwest Passage, arriving in Halifax harbor on October 11, 1942. St. Roch was the second ship to make the passage, and the first to travel the passage from west to east. In 1944, St. Roch returned to Vancouver via the more northerly route of the Northwest Passage, making her run in 86 days. The epic voyages of St. Roch demonstrated Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic during the difficult wartime years, and extended Canadian control over its vast northern territories.
Kem:
I have tried to show you before that the NW passage has been ice free many times, but you seem to not want to see that.
Here is emperical proof. And it isn't that old either.
Can you actually deny that proof???
Kem:
If I look at data from 1979 on......then the ice is melting. IF I look at historical data, the melting is nothing new.
So, Mr. Hansen is right, this will be the 1st melting since 1979, but it hasn't quit melted enough for passage, and in fact is growing again and won't be ice free this year.
He has an agenda my dear fellow. I don't mind agenda's at all, but I don't like someone of his calibur thinking I am quit that stupid, and him making statements that are alarmist and also stated in such a way as to deny previous emperical evidence.
Kem:
You have to remember you are talking to an Icelander here, and there are many stories of my forefathers sailing the passage.
And I am also very proud of the fact that Iceland is on the forefront of hydrogen fuel. Their tourist ship this year is being power by hydrogen, and they plan on exporting hydrogen as they can make it quit easily there.
I am in the process of building a wind tower to make hydrogen for my grain dryer. I also want to make NH3 for myself. Pure economics at work.
Oh well, I don't think you understand me, and maybe I don't understand you.
It certainly is a complicated issue, and I dont understand all of the data which has led a vast majority of the scientific community to plead with the rest of us to start doing somthing about our carbon emmisions. I do know that the weather seems much different than when I was young. It seemed more predictable back then. It was hot in the summer and cold in the winter in Canada where I live, and now you never really know what you are going to get. I know also that the inuit who have been in the north for thousands of years are saying that the climate is changing drastically.
Even if the small minority of scientists that deny that human carbon emmisions are causing global climate change turn out to be correct, would it really be so bad to try to reduce emmisions. Do we really need slave labour in the third world churning out junk to peddle from the shelves of Wallmart and the dollar stores. Do we really need these big houses (and their big mortgages we can't afford) in suburbs, and the resulting stressful commutes every day.
And what if the vast majority of scientists that say global climate change is already upon us are correct? It seems to me that we should act as if they are - just in case.
A little government regulation might be in order here - some incentives for people to live in a more sustainable way - some penalties for individuals, and corporations that do not. You know, we might even find that by doing so we could make the world a better place in which to live. I better stop now before I start singing a Burt Bacharach song.
What the world needs now
is love, sweet love…
Between 1940 and 1942 St. Roch navigated the Northwest Passage, arriving in Halifax harbor on October 11, 1942.
If the passage was ice free why did it take two bloody years to get thru the thing? Also take note of the size of the ship.
Length: 31.8 m (104'3") Beam: 7.5 m (24'7") Draft: 3.25 m (10'8") Tonnage: 196.5 t
It's a ship because it carried boats, but at less than 200 tons it wasn't that big of a ship. More of a big yacht really, the first commercial ship to pass thru the NW passage was a yankee tanker, Manhatten I think, and it required the service of an ice breaker to get thru in the 1960s.
I'll agree that the climate has changed - naturally - many times in the past. But the change that the world is going thru now is not, and cannot be explained by natural forces alone. If it's a combo of nature and manmade change, we're not likely to survive it. But if it's manmade change than there are things we can do to stop and let the Earth heal itself. I say that when god gave us dominion over the earth it wasn't to turn the planet into a garbage dump. Nor was it to kill off the major or minor forms of flora and fauna. In the name of making money we've done both. Do you really want your children to learn that gold isn't sufficent to maintain life? After all, you can't eat money.
Ice is nice.
The Venusian climate is a little too hot for me.
Take your pick or fill in the blanks.
CD commenters are deserting in droves because the comments are so relentlessly:
1) Repetitive
2) Boring
3) Infantile
4) Tedious
5) Condescending
6) _____________
norman:
I think probably all of the above. There are two sides to all of this and holes in each sides arguement.
I think that humans should conserve as well as they can. This idea of carbon cap and trade is just that, silly. Turn off the lights when not in use, get a car that can achieve 40mpg, turn of the puter even when not in use. Save what energy you can, as being a good steward is important in life. Realize that the "drivers" of climate are many and poorly understood. It is not an exact science in any way shape or form.
I don't think less of anyone who believes that man is the "driver". I don't think less of anyone who thinks he isn't. There just isn't proof of either arguement that justifies alarmist thinking. I do know one thing for sure:
We are cooling, we are warming. That has been happending since the beginning of time.
Hopeful Brewer -- the day seems to be coming when we will no longer be able to put up hay in our increasingly humid climate (not only does a thawing Arctic Ocean soak up rather than reflect sunlight, it also contributes moisture to a newly developing hydrologic cycle) . . . here in interior alaska, we never used to have stretches of really humid summer weather, now we do, it makes haying very difficult . . .
Hemp sounds like a very natural replacement crop to me ! And because of our photoperiod there is absolutely no danger of it going to seed, which takes out the biggest argument against growing it . . . it is SO versatile and my favorite clothes are hemp fabric which is tough like linen without being rough and scratchy . . .
But we are an oil-rich state and the agricultural department, which should be researching and advocating alternative crops, is so useless that the local branch (and we live in the most active agricultural area in the state) got moved out of its cushy digs in the Department of Natural Resources and now has to share marginal space with the Department of Vital Statistics over on the poor side of town . . .
ON the return voyage it took 86 days. Depends on what route you want to take I guess and what the mission of the ship was. But the main thrust is it was done.
Sig11 _ Have you ever been to the St. Roch exhibit. If not, come to Vancouver BC and do so.
You just might learn something.
Like the fact that the St. Roch was the first ship to make the Northwest passage, which by the way IS NOT ACROSS THE NORTH POLE!
The Northwest passage hugs the islands of Canada's north.
Idiot.
If I find a blogger's comments to be boring, I have a neat little gizzy here called a "mouse". I use it to scroll on by those whom I have determined to be boring or repetive. You ever played with your mouse?
I always respond to global warming deniers, for it's my humble opinion, that there is no other issue that I'm aware of, "that we can control", that could eradicte all of humanity within hours and that eradication last thru perpetuity.
When global warming reaches a point where the enormous amount of methane in the oceans bursts out into the atmosphere, almost all life, down to the microbal level will 'suddenly' die as it did during the Permian era of Earth's history.
That disaster may occur within twenty years or less, unless we get our act together NOW. That wipe-out of life includes our children and their children, the polar bears, aardvarks, the duckbill platapus and our loving house pets. ___ EVERYTHING!
You gonna tell us why ~James Hanson~ is wrong ~Siggy11~?
You told us ~James Hanson~ is quite right ~SIG~. I agree with you there, and if he's quite right, ___ you're quite wrong.
You say ~James Hanson~ is quite right ~SIG~. I agree with you there, and if he's quite right, you are quite wrong.
Last year, 2007, was the first time in recorded history, that ships could traverse the Northwest Passage in any reasonable amount of time, without the use of ice breakers. That is because the Arctic is thawing and the ice is melting and has been melting at a fast pace for several years as James Hanson has well proven.
Sorry for the double post, the first one had disappeared.
Hey ~Sigurdur~ is it true that Icelander ducks quack with ___ "Qvack __ Qvack"?
LOL@Kem:
I don't know as I live in the US. Altho, there are a lot of Icelanders around here today as it is the Aug Duece celebration.
Galen:
I know the St. Roch didn't go across the north pole. We were talking about the NW passage. The north pole is still covered with ice unless the satelite pictures are all wrong.
Ken:
Again, if you use the data since 1978 is what Mr. Hansen uses, then he is correct. IF you use the data since the turn of the century, then he is wrong.
Once again, pick selected data and you can prove any point.
Good luck to you all. It seems one of my posts has disappeared as well. OH well, not going to lose sleep over it.
Have you all seen those pictures sent back from Mars, telling of the discovery of water?
Truth is, Mars used to look very much like Earth, but the little green men thought global warming was just a hoax...
Hey Pshaw:
So you mean there is oil on Mars???????
KEMPATRICK, I DO NOT OFTEN AGREE WITH YOU, HOWEVER THANKS for the good post, in fact a public service. You have done a service to those who are climate change doubters. Your first post on this story should be commended, the rest become inflated with self importance. I thank you for trying to help those who doubt climate change to open their eyes, their minds and try to understand what human denial mechanisms are about for they definitely have those maladies. But too much becomes a boor as others have noted.
This is a country that is responsible of 25% of the climate change problem. Why is that so? Because the USA is hooked on its car fetish. The advertising age has subverted and suborned Americans to believe that their credit card and their car are the only things of value and the hell with any thing else or anyone else on this planet as long as they are free to consume with abandonment.
We are in big trouble because there are too many people in this world who are ignorant and their half truth will help destroy civilization. That is the unfortunate truth. I have become silent these days since I know that it will take a huge irreversable disaster presently in the making to have people understand their media conditioned stupidity.
ike kay:
Calling someone ignorant is not going to move your man made gw arguement ahead. I at least look at both sides of this, and look for evidence from both sides. It is conflicting....period. There is no absolute certainty to either side.
No model has worked yet for either group of people. That indicates other drivers that are not in the models.
Oh well, mensa is still my friend.....:)
Hey Sig,
Actually scientists agree, there has not been melting like this for millenia. That's why scientists are flocking to the region to see.
What do you think of this from the article:
"The team on board the Louis are some of the thousands of scientists from 60 nations working to draw attention to the rapid changes in the Arctic and Antarctic during International Polar Year."
Scientists almost universally agree on the cause of global warming - that is human activities - and on the fact that it is a crisis we need to address now.
And on your team of deniers, liars, and obfuscators, you have... oh, almost no one. You sure do manage to make a whole lot of noise though.
Do you actually pretend to assert that the vast majority of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS around the world are ignorant, dupes, fools, liars, or part of some grand conspiracy?
Now please, deny the plain truth about the clear scientific consensus, and please, throw something up on this board to transfer the issue to something else. Your work is very important. To someone.
Kem-Hansen is a political activist who spreads fear even when NASA's own data contradict him. And at least learn to spell his name right, if you have chosen him as your high priest of AGW.
Also, I never said the Arctic ice was not thawing over the last 30 years. I did point out there is more summer sea ice in the Arctic than there was last year. I also question why this would be a big deal, assuming it ever happens. As this article admits, the models are wildly inaccurate. So stop putting words that I never said in my mouth Kem. This tactic of argument is one practiced by the bush league neocons.
Here is a link to an article on the models
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3361
Here is the status of the North West Passage this summer.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/northwest-passage-still-impassable/
And anyone who tells you there is a 16 million year historical record on sea ice, as one of the corporate government scientists was quoted in this article, is blowing sunshine up your butts.
The Medieval Warm Period was a time of unusually warm weather during the European Medieval period. The period was followed by the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling that lasted until the 19th century when the current period of global warming began.
Since the end of the last Ice Age, the earth has enjoyed two periods that were warmer than the twentieth century.
The Ice Age ended about 12,000 to 10,000 years ago when the glaciers covering much of North America, Scandinavia and northern Asia began to retreat to approximately their current positions. As the earth warmed with the waning of the Ice Age, the sea level rose as much as 300 feet;
By 7,000 years ago and lasting for about four millenniums, the earth was warmer than today, perhaps by 4deg. Fahrenheit, about the average of the various predictions for global warming from a doubling of CO2. Although the climate cooled a bit after 3000 B.C., it stayed relatively warmer than the modern world until sometime after 1000 B.C., when chilly temperatures became more common.
From around 800 A.D. to 1200 or 1300, the globe warmed again considerably and civilization prospered. This prosperous period collapsed at the end of the thirteenth century with the advent of the "Mini Ice Age"
The ice-age scare is only too solidly founded. For the past two million years, but not before, the northern hemisphere has gone through a regular cycle of major ice ages: 90,000 years with ice: 10,000 years without . The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. Our time is up. The next ice age is due. However, a new ice age, unlike global warming, would be a certain calamity. Could global warming be holding back the next ice age?
One of the real threats to mankind is the danger of collision with a large asteroid. It has happened in the past with catastrophic effect, and it will probably happen again. But there are no conferences, resolutions, gatherings, protests and newspaper headlines about asteroid impacts. The reason is that you cannot find anyone suitable to blame for them. If you could persuade people that President Bush or the oil companies were responsible for the asteroids, I guarantee there would be a billion-dollar campaign to "raise awareness" about the asteroid danger, with sonorous editorials in all the papers.
This is not a co-ordinated conspiracy but a fashion in which self-interest and ideology combine, and green activists, politicians and journalists help each other to get more funding, more sensational stories and more enemies to blame, except China and India who are going to "put more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with conventional coal-fired generators than all of the rest of the planet has during the last 150 years." STOP China and India FIRST, then let's see where we stand on global warming.
Hi webwalk:
The majority of scientists once said the earth was flat. Did that make them correct beyond repute? No it did not.
I think all scientists are looking for the drivers of climate change. Some seem to think it is confined to co2 emmissions, some seem to think it is confined to sun activity, some seem to think it is volcanic, some seem to think it is normal.
I am not convinced that co2 is the driver as much as you are. There has always been a lag between co2 levels and warming. It seems to have warmed 1st, then co2 has risen.
I am not nearly as concerned as you are about the Arctic ice. It has happened before, and will happen again. When the Vikings were sailing along the north side of Canada centuries ago and talking with the Inuits, they were sailing and not walking. That is historical fact.
I have seen inuendo about Arctic melting and global warming, yet when asked explicity, most scientists seem to agree that they don't know for sure what is causing the Arctic melt.
I do know that the ice mass on Greenland and Antarctica is building. I am talking the interior ice mass. The loss on the perimiter is not enough to offset the gain in the interior.
People have their agendas. That is just being people. I am sure in their minds that they think they are correct to the 100th degree. However, no model to date has been proven, nor has it been very accurate.
We are in a cooling phase globally right now. That is a fact. Have been for a number of years. We will see how that plays out as the sun seems to be entering a period of solar minimum. This cooling phase is wrecking havoc on the warming models, as according to the models this should not be happening.
Again, I think the total understanding of all of this is in the infantile stage. I am not ready to jump on the bandwagon as I have always been an independant fellow. I do know from local, which bears no meaning in global, temps, that we are cooling in ND. Our seasonal average planting date has been pushed back by around 10 days, the geese are flying north later than during the 90's, and our falls have become colder with a vengance. But that is only antidotal evidence, and not global in effect. We are 165 GDD behind normal this year, which is not boding well for our crops, and it is too late to catch up those days.
The scientific consensus is not clear, but a hypothosis.
As I have stated, there are those who think co2 is the cause, and there are those who don't think co2 is the cause. IF it was clear, there would be no debate or hunt for other contributing drivers.
Good Luck.
There has been ice at the north pole for 16 million years until... us.
Deniers skip over that particular point which puts to lie their natural cycles mumbo jumbo.
Any sunspot activity in 16 million years, deniers?
Deniers act like an abruptly melting ice cap is normal.
They should google for a graph showing the average global temperatures recorded for the last century... and then deny that too.
What do deniers get from denying the science and retarding efforts which even they must see are necessary?
... other than not having to admit to themselves ... and others... that they have got it wrong.
16 million years... times up... for the ice cap...
Somehow deniers act like it isn't happening ... or pretend like it's no big deal.
Maybe they think Santa will bring them a magic fix?
Maybe ... but there is an old guy in a red suit treading open water at the north pole.
Um? Hey deniers?
... Santa's busy... best we save the planet ourselves... you are only delaying what even you can see needs to be done.
Santa's treading open water...
Santa
MiMi:
I have read about the same results from a study a bit over a year ago. Ref to the http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3361 link.
This study would only re-inforce the results that I read. IF mem serves me correctly, the author of the study I read was a grad student at MIT. I did not give it much credence at the time because I could find no other colaborating evidence of such.
NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face
November 13, 2007
PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.
The team, led by James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, Seattle, used data from an Earth-observing satellite and from deep-sea pressure gauges to monitor Arctic Ocean circulation from 2002 to 2006. They measured changes in the weight of columns of Arctic Ocean water, from the surface to the ocean bottom. That weight is influenced by factors such as the height of the ocean's surface, and its salinity. A saltier ocean is heavier and circulates differently than one with less salt.
The very precise deep-sea gauges were developed with help from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the satellite is NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace). The team of scientists found a 10-millibar decrease in water pressure at the bottom of the ocean at the North Pole between 2002 and 2006, equal to removing the weight of 10 centimeters (four inches) of water from the ocean. The distribution and size of the decrease suggest that Arctic Ocean circulation changed from the counterclockwise pattern it exhibited in the 1990s to the clockwise pattern that was dominant prior to 1990.
Reporting in Geophysical Research Letters, the authors attribute the reversal to a weakened Arctic Oscillation, a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere. The weakening reduced the salinity of the upper ocean near the North Pole, decreasing its weight and changing its circulation.
"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.
I know....I know.....these fellows are denyers as well. Somehow science is getting in the way tho.
BugsBBunny III: I absolutely deny the existence of Santa, does that make me a "denier"?
"...The melt is leading Arctic nations, including Canada, Russia and the US, to seriously examine new shipping routes through the Arctic - including the Northwest Passage - and the potential expansion of huge oil and gas fields..."
What in the hell is wrong with us? The answer is that the idiots are in charge. And until that changes, just expect the downward spiral to continue as we fail to address the root causes: population, consumption, and equity.
KemPatrick....it is of course none of my business if you and others want to waste your time with Sig and other such climate deniers, but really isn't it about as useless as trying to talk an alcoholic out of his next drink. These people have chosen to deny science that has resulted from the consensus, of what, 1200 leading scientists, and is so complicated that no single person can understand it. Never the less we have these village idiots who are sure that they know more--they heard it from fox news or an Exxon sponsored source or Rush or where ever. ( BTW I just heard on Hannity that Obama in addition to be uppity, best friends with a terrorist, unfamiliar, unqualified, of no accomplishment, scary, a light weight, similar to Paris and Brittney, is also, believe it or not, a communist.) Myself, I can't waste my time with them.
These are same people who would tell you that the disappearance of the Cod on the East Coast or the Salmon here on the West Coast is just part of some natural cycle and has nothing to do with dams, early snow melts, water diversions, destruction of stream habitats, pollution, dead zones off the Oregon Coast, overfishing or, heaven forbid, global warming. They will tell you that the ocean is infinitely full, that the Lord will Provide.
www.StudentsForTheEarth.org
Hey joneden:
I don't care for Mr. Limgaugh at all. I think he is still on his "meds" most of the time and not worth wasting time listening to. And sorry, I refuse to pay for cable as most of it is garbage so I don't get fox news either....dog gone it! And exxon?....since when did they sponsor NASA and the Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory?
Read all the ideas, don't get so locked into one that you have blinders on. I am very open to change when I see the models actually working, or other emperical evidence that what is happening right now is not the norm.
joneden August 3rd, 2008 8:40 pm
What in the hell is wrong with us?
I'll tell you what is wrong...
What bothers me is the lack of civility given to Sigurdur11. Do all of you want a discussion on the issue or do you take pleasure in insulting the man? You can state your views without the vile hatred.
I wouldn't want any of you to make the decisions concerning this planet (Sigurdur11 excluded of course) just because of your anger and lack of manners.
Do as the planet is doing and chill out.
Sig I can't change your mind. This science, in general, is about probabilities. For that I turn to the IPCC, NSIDC, Proceedings..., Geophysical Research Letters, Science , and Nature. I know they might be wrong but the chances for that, according to them, are vanishingly small. Until such a time that there is another panel of such size and prestige as the IPCC, I am going to trust their judgments. I have no other rational choice.....I could certainly spend my time digging up contrary pieces of evidence, but from my point of view that would be a useless activity.Good luck to you though.
BugsBBunny III said "There has been ice at the north pole for 16 million years until… us."
The quote was in relation to sea ice and said by one person without any evidence to back this claim up. Human civilization goes back 5000 years. And anyways, there still is sea ice. It's not gone, even in the summer.
Where I live there is no Fox or Rush. As for Exxon, David Rockefeller told them to stop funding the anti-AGW movement. Big oil has had a nice run for 8 years, it's time for his banking empire to profit from carbon credits. Thats what Obama means by Change.
Here are a partial listing of scientists who are not buying that man is causing significant warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University: "This small warming is likely a result of the natural alterations in global ocean currents which are driven by ocean salinity variations. Ocean circulation variations are as yet little understood. Human kind has little or nothing to do with the recent temperature changes. We are not that influential." "I am of the opinion that [global warming] is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." "So many people have a vested interest in this global-warming thing—all these big labs and research and stuff. The idea is to frighten the public, to get money to study it more."
Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia: "the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998 ... there is every doubt whether any global warming at all is occurring at the moment, let alone human-caused warming."
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute: "The blind adherence to the harebrained idea that climate models can generate 'realistic' simulations of climate is the principal reason why I remain a climate skeptic. From my background in turbulence I look forward with grim anticipation to the day that climate models will run with a horizontal resolution of less than a kilometer. The horrible predictability problems of turbulent flows then will descend on climate science with a vengeance."
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists : "models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view".
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences: "Global warming results not from the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, but from an unusually high level of solar radiation and a lengthy - almost throughout the last century - growth in its intensity...Ascribing 'greenhouse' effect properties to the Earth's atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated...Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away."
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics: "[T]he recent warming trend in the surface temperature record cannot be caused by the increase of human-made greenhouse gases in the air."
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison: "It's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air."
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa: "That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation - which has a cooling effect. ... We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. And interestingly... solar activity has recently begun a downward cycle."
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester: "The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming."
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University: "global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. If the cycles continue as in the past, the current warm cycle should end soon and global temperatures should cool slightly until about 2035"
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology: "There has been a real climate change over the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries that can be attributed to natural phenomena. Natural variability of the climate system has been underestimated by IPCC and has, to now, dominated human influences."
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, said in an interview: "What I think is this: Man is responsible for a PART of global warming. MOST of it is still natural."
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware: "About half of the warming during the 20th century occurred prior to the 1940s, and natural variability accounts for all or nearly all of the warming."
Tim Patterson[31], paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada: "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years. On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Ian Plimer, Professor emeritus of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide: "We only have to have one volcano burping and we have changed the whole planetary climate... It looks as if carbon dioxide actually follows climate change rather than drives it".
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia: "The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect." "It's not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists."
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center: "Our team ... has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth's surface temperature. During the 20th Century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. ... most of the warming during the 20th Century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover."
Hey IMFEDUP.....i heard your plea for civility. I could have heard it a little better if it had not itself been so uncivil.
Sig you certainly deserve courtesy. My apologies....Jon
LOL. I knew that was coming.
That's not being uncivil... it's called chastising an angry mob. Calm down people.
joneden
Very decent of you to Sig.
My apologies if I was too harsh.
MiMi:
All of these fellows are leaders in their fields. That is my point, this is NOT scientific consensus.
Thank you IMFEDUP: I am an older feller who was taught long ago that discussion is wonderful and to stay on topic. I refuse to call anyone names etc because of their understandings of things. That has become a huge problem in the US. Almost to the point of being a neo society. Rather than explore diff in ideas, they just call each other names and get absolutely nothing productive done. Shameful, but it is as it is.
"Intelligent discourse is the fruit of a problem. Agreement is the fruit of discourse....hence the solution becomes evident." That quote I made up years ago. I think it speaks for itself.
All appologies accepted. One can get carried away at times, but at least do as I do. I look at both sides.
Ya know, a very wise old man said something once....Everything seems to have something to do with money....and his other quote was "All wars are economic"
That wise fellow is my father, still going strong at 83. He remembers the depression, the weather flucuations in his lifetime. Has always said follow the money trail.
I try and follow reason, validity, and not some wild statements that have no validity. The global warming models really do not work as of yet with the data that is being fed into them as the bases. I want a working model that can actually predict with at least a better than 10% certainty what will happen before I am ready to stop looking with sceptisism.
Nothing worse than an old sceptic huh?