Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA 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 AllUncertainties and local climate variations cannot be denied.
What is of concern is our Global trajectory. Will our global environmental trends ultimately exceed the bounds of life as we know it? If so when?
Can mankind exist without a supportive ecosystem?
What evidence exists that the planet's ecosystems are already in irreversible decline? If supported, such data would suggest that the planet will enter another paradigm shift regardless of climate change.
To be clear, the Earth will of course eventually enter a new epoch at some point. Just as all things have a birth, a midlife and a departure. Stars, Galaxies, Universes, you name it.
What I want to know is, can we expect the arrival of this scale of change sooner than any of us comprehend? I am inviting conversation that even the most dismal prognostications may fall short of our unfolding reality.
If after all, we are not the basis of all life in the food chain, are we therefore not subject to changes in the vitality of the entire web of life?
Thanks for listening!
I'm not certain exactly whom you are refering to ~NORMAN~ when you say
SOME people take over the postings and become abusive.
I posted 18 comments here, 14 were in response to others, such as ~Sigurur11~ who posted 25 comments. There were a total of 30 comments by deniers and I relplied to them 12 times. NO deniers, I post four comments about the issue and two just responding to others like my last one to ~Jaguara~.
A Wonderful analogy ~Jaguara~ Thank you. I'd like to use it.
You know,
There are 10,000 historians who believe in the holocost, and yet there are a few hundred who deny it happened. Is there consensus? Overwhelmingly yes, but not 100%. I have seen the tattoos, and spoken with survivors. I know it happened.
There are 10,000 scientists who believe in the global warming, and yet there are a few hundred who deny it is happening. Is there consensus? Overwhelmingly yes, but not 100%. I have seen the changes, the melting ice, read the data. I know it is happening.
The ones I offer in links to back up what I post know the subject matter of climate cahnge, global warming and the methane threat quite well ~TECH2~.
What is that you know quite well about the issue, you care to share it?
Again, it seems those with only a general understanding of climate change are capable only of gross generalizations.
go for it KEM, go for it.........give the bastards hell. who cares? i can never understand the petty issues that upset people when the greatest threat to us all and our beautiful planet is staring us in the face.
that's what's wrong with the world. people are too hung up on pettiness. they can't see the wood for the trees. but be thankful, that the majority of posters here do not agree with the 'deniers'............
Some people tend to support the deniers if they are told off in a rude fashion. These GW deniers are harmful to the max to everyone. There is no greater threat to our very existance than the current global warming, as the new article posted here today, "The WMD Threat We Should Worry About" states.
As another here posted yesterday, they are as bad as the paid Exxon/Mobil shills. Fuck em, they are trying to fuck us and I don't know why they are, I can only surmise that and there are no decent or fair and honest reasons.
Sorry my language may bother some, but that's me, I may get vulgur with assholes. Hey ~NORMAN`CONQUEST~ you got anything productive or informative to offer us about the global warming issue? We are here to get educated and harrass the trolls.
Ike,
What a masterpiece of understatement:
YES, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT SOME PEOPLE HERE TEND TO BE ABUSISVE AND TAKE OVER THE THE POSTINGS.
Nobody who actually lives in the far north seems to have checked in so far . . . yes, it is warming rapidly but there are MANY wild cards and for instance if the freshwater melt from Greenland 'turns off' the Gulf Stream then all of northern europe may find itself in deep winter (question : which city is farther north, New York City or Rome, Italy ? )
yes we may all yet expire from burping methane but at least that won't leave the planet reeking of radioactivity as it will if we all expire from what is still the most immediate danger facing us : an all-out nuclear war
Kem, my ears are burning from reading some of your posts ! Please . . . i don't want to think of you as a potty-mouthed old man . . .
We can certainly disagree but let's be civil. Lord knows there are few enough farmers as it is without us getting all ugly with each other.
Right now in interior alaska we are having serious flooding, the rains may be due to increased evapotranspiration from the open water in the Arctic Ocean but then again maybe not, the record year for flooding was 1967 although we might break it by the end of the week. The Tanana River (huge braided silt- laden river, pretty wicked even at normal levels for boaters & etc.) has already eaten a couple of towns and is backing up into our little Chena River at Fairbanks, we do have a flood control project way upriver on the Chena but that's not going to do any good as far as the Tanana is concerned and there is no stopping it . . .
If this is a new weather pattern due to open water to the north, it might be the new normal . . . so much for our nice dry sunny summers . . .
I too thank you for the compliment ~JUNGLEBOY~, it is a little difficult to
continually argue with the deniers and it takes time. They have to be answered by somebody though, as some of their arguments may sound credible to
any who may not be sure of the issue. Of course on the positive angle, they do help all of us to get more informed and educated about it. Even rodents serve a purpose.
Thanks for the heads up COCO, we'll be out there and thinking about you.
KEM PATRICK
yeah, ha ha ha haaaaaaaaaaaa. btw, there is going to be a meteor shower on 12th august so look out for it. spectacular by all accounts.
JUNGLEBOY
my pleasure.............
``
No one here has taken over the postings. Some, like myself, have replied to several others and therefore have more posted comments. Any abuse that obtuse deciever gets is justifiable.
~Sigurdur11~, you just gave a perfect example of your problem. You don't undrestand or comprenenbd reading. I NEVER said anyone from NASA was forced to do anything. Read what I wrote then read the article about the EPA's atmospheric scientists being muzzled. And now your're trying to play the nice guy who has been abused game. Shit, buzzz off.
A NOTE FOR FOLKS LIKE YOU MR. SIGURDUR 11, WHO CONTINUE TO DOUBT THE OBVIOUS WHICH THE UN ICPP IS CERTAIN ABOUT AND THE 100S OF SCIENTISTS SUPPORT, EXCEPTING THOSE NOT PAID BY BUSH AND EXXON. READ THE 'HEAT IS ON" BY ROSS GELBSPAN. YES, I AGREE WITH YOU THAT SOME PEOPLE HERE TEND TO BE ABUSISVE AND TAKE OVER THE THE POSTINGS.
Thank you civil behavior. I have called the library and they are going to order it in for me.
Sigurdur 11
Include a new book called Under a Green Sky by Peter Ward while you are contemplating the analysis of the climate projections.
I'm sure you won't be disappointed.
I wish you very well trying to advocate for the chance that global warming might simply be "supposition" after reading it.
Kem:
I have been getting my combine ready and thinking about you while I was doing so.
I have posted data from NASA, a direct quote from Gavin Schmit, and all it does is seem to anger you. Then you stated that they were "forced" to write or say these things by their employeers. That tactic doesn't hold water at all. That is what the close minded opponents of global warming keep saying and I expected better from you being the sources were from people you deem credible.
What the data is seeming to show is that there is not a "lock" on one item as a driver. Also, the models are not doing a very good job of predicting, but that is because there are more drivers yet to be found.
You can use stats to prove almost anything depending on what you are comfortable with as far as the lsd's.
I won't bother you again as I do not want to upset you. The proof that you view as ir-revocable is not. There is a lot of supposition in the articles for proof, just as there is supposition in the articles trying to refute it. To close one's mind or debate when there are as yet so many unknowns is somewhat foolish, but I think that you do know that.
Climate is constantly changing, there is no "norm" per se. Even in the short time of a 1,000 years there have been huge variables which can't be explained. If you can explain these I am all ears, as I have not found a firm explanation.
I wish you very well in your endeavors.
Hi kem, coco, Nice to see you keeping up the good work here. I still love reading your posts and hearing the rants and stir. Off to work I go! I just wanted to give you a personal "thanks".
NativeSon August 3rd, 2008 2:29 pm
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.
Let's hope there will be intelligent life remaining. If the predictions come true that there will be a tremendous loss of life through these climate shifts, it would seem that the very loss of human population is what will bring the Earth back into balance. The loss of many other beautiful species, such as the polar bear, is a heavy price to pay for the return of that balance.
Hi everyone, Not to rock the boat but to hell with the scientists. If my brain works, I'd like to think the animals of this planet and the other life forms, mushrooms and plants, fish and bugs and stuff didn't use a billion cars burning "something" and running their houses, being in a concrete jungle, off coal for their tvs and lights and whatever, all making heat. When I was in school the science teacher taught us from the book that the earths crust could only take so much warming before we would have a major problem with earthquakes and other natural events unknown. In class we learned that it could take only a few degrees to spark the whole mess that is still not explained in any news source as we could not think of what to call it. Climate change? no. global warming? no. There is no real name for what could happen if we heat this place up too much. Maybe "disaster". So, if some odd billion folks around us make too much heat for the planet to cool and we add another billion to that, Is the heat caused by people? No? Must be Santa God right? jskddn. Whatever any denier wants to say and use in his argument is his choice but I'd still like to remember that I was made from the ashes of this planet and it is my right to help it and survive with it. Id like to remember that its just a degree or two away from a new life on earth (as the crust is very slow to warm but has been warming). Just do a head count, divide by acres, multiply by cars, add gas, tie the noose, light the match and kick the chair, then deny. Heck with a fat ass like yours, you lazy scum, how can you deny methane problems!? Well, that is not aimed ant anyone by the way, but it sounded funny. And to all you others, shouting into the bloggosphere windage hoping to be heard and answered by God herself, I wish me a good day!
Hi ~COCO~ That link opened and the article proves beyond a shadow of doubt that these deniers are just posting total bullshit. Thank you for posting that very informative and educational link and the article was published in Oct of 2007, so it's current for this subject.
~TECH 2~ What you just posted is a childish like lie and you know it.
Read the link ~COCO~ posted ~Sigurdur~ if you actually want some fucking evidence.
Just returned from the far north recently.
Not on the coastline, but in the tundra, above the treeline.
It was so... cold last winter that the lakes were still frozen, in late June.
It is a lot warmer right now than usual though.
Lets all keep in mind, that an "ice free" arctic only ever refers to a few months in the summer. The rest of the year it is very cold up there.
Unless greenhouse gases can change the tilt of the earth.... you can save packing your beach-ware.
Sea ice is in the normal range this year.
Kem:
For your information I think President Bush is a waste of air space. Don't know how anyone could get things so screwed up in such a short period of time, but it seems to have happened during his Presidency.
Also, you kept talking about the radical runaway effect. I gave you Gavin's quote on the subject and you got mad. I went to a source that you deemed reliable.
I am not trying to change your mind as your mind is made up. I was, and will continue to look for scientific reasons to change mine. So far I have not seen credible reasons to change it as the evidence people keep purporting as fact doesn't add up.
I haven't posted much in the past, thought I would learn something different from what I have read, and haven't.
Thank you for your time and efforts.
Good luck in the future.
Update: from space, the entire Northwest Passage looks wide open as of August 2. The Siberian Passage is clogged with ice at two relatively small juncture points, but that could easily open up in, say, a week.
"Ah if just one time I could find the Northwest Passage
And find the hand of Franklin reaching for the Beaufort Sea
Tracing one warm line through a land so wide and savage. . ."
As for the warming, it is real and the people posting here that don't want to believe it well go buy some land in Florida Keys and tell me in 20 + years how deep the water is.
Kem to add to my post above , CD doesn't cover the real stories other sites have no problem with.
Kem and others
People are leaving CD for other reasons maybe touched on above. The stories are posted several times with a twist headline. You get the same people saying the same thing. As for people not getting on, I know myself I have had trouble but at times tell the truth that others don't want to hear.
Interesting discussion at a glance. I'll have to read through all the posts tonight.
Some things I find interesting: The GISS global temp data is only averaging 0.35 - 0.4 deg above the base period so far for 2008. It started with a dip in late 2007 (or 2007 might have been the warmest year on record). Maybe the record ice melt last summer chilled things for a while. La Nina or something has put a glitch in the trend, at least for the first half of 2008.
I believe NOVA is going to reprise its "Global Dimming" episode this week. More info to stir the pot.
I side with the GW alarmists. CO2 is obviously a GHG, we are obviously producing it faster than nature can compensate, the oceanic and atmospheric temperature trends are clear. It all fits together. We'll see. 2011-12 might be a rough one.
KEM PATRICK
don't know if this will work as it's very old but have a look at this.....and anyone else who is interested.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/21/AR2007102100761.html?sid=ST20071021007...
ExxonSecrets is a Greenpeace site, and hardly without bias.
From Roy Spencer, former NASA scientist, like Hansen, who testified before Congress recently that he was restrained from debunking Global Warming when appearing before Congress while employed by NASA, by the Clinton administration.
"It has become commonplace for scientists like me who are skeptical of mankind's role in global warming to be branded as shills for "Big Oil". As a result of misinformation posted at ExxonSecrets.org (and other web sites that spread that misinformation), I would like to set the record straight concerning my financial interests.
ExxonSecrets.org notes that I have given talks on global warming at conservative think tanks like the Marshall Institute, implying that I have some sort of financial relationship with them. In truth, I received no speaking fee for these talks -- but I HAVE been paid for giving talks for environmental organizations in several states. I wonder why ExxonSecrets.org doesn't mention this connection to "Big Environmentalism"? After all, they are the ones who have paid me speaking fees -- not the Marshall Institute.
After 12 years of receiving no compensation for my writings, I was eventually asked to write global warming related articles for TechCentralStation.com (now TCSDaily.com). That website advocated science, technology, and free markets, and was indeed partially funded by oil interests. While I no longer write for that web site, over a three year period I augmented my "day job" salary by an average of 5% by writing articles. The views expressed in those articles were consistent with the views I had expressed for twelve years for no compensation. (Quite frankly, since I supported the ideals promoted on TechCentralStation.com, I really didn't care who funded it).
The dirty little secret is that environmental organizations and global warming pessimists receive far more money from Big Oil than do global warming optimists such as myself. While professional environmental lobbyists are totally dependent upon environmental crises for their continued existence, atmospheric researchers and meteorologists have day jobs which are not. Some outspoken global warming pessimists have received large cash awards (hundreds of thousands of dollars) for the positions they have taken; there are no such monetary awards for global warming optimists. Instead, we have to endure scorn from several outspoken peers in the scientific community, some of whom are successful at thwarting our publication of scientific articles and government funding of our research proposals.
As long as the global warming pessimists can convince the public that we skeptics are simply shills for Big Oil, they do not have to address our scientific arguments. The claims that there are no peer-reviewed scientific articles that oppose a manmade source of global warming are, quite simply, wrong. Fortunately, the tide is slowly turning, and increasing numbers of scientists are now speaking out about their doubts concerning mankind's role in recent global warmth."
A couple of months ago :"David Rockefeller, retired chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank and patriarch of the family, issued a statement saying, "I support my family's efforts to sharpen Exxon Mobil's focus on the environmental crisis facing all of us"
I got news for you. Big Oil, Banking and Environmental are all linked by interlocking Directorships. You see a wrestling match between Big Oil (right) and Global Warming (left), but it's as real as a professional wrestling match, just like the Republican vs Democrat show, the winners are predetermined every 4-8 years, and it's Obama time (McCain knows this although he might be hoping for a miracle). The Bankers are the bookies, they collect no matter who wins anyways. The VP's keep the presidents honest (hey I like your chair boss).
And Exxon is now defunding the skeptics. Even McCain said he was for carbon cap and trading before backing down.
So lets give a bit of history to help those with an open mind figure it out. KEM and webwalker just scroll on down.
In 1991 there was a book published by the Trilateral Commission called: "Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the Worlds Economy and Earths Ecology" which contained a forward from David Rockefeller himself. This was 1 year before the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. According to the book, the major goal for the summit was to launch a global transition for sustainable development. It also called for the political capacity to produce the basic changes needed in our national and international economic agendas and in our institutions of governance to ensure this goal was attainable. It set a deadline for 2012 where these changes must be fully integrated into our economic and political life".
Funny, I don't recall voting for that.
Sustainable growth is insider jargon for Green-deindustrialization in the developed world (like the US), and global cartelization of natural resources, including food and water, and international control of the worlds economy. In other words, One World Government. Control the money, oil and food, and you control the world. Thats pretty much done now, isn't it. Just waiting for the announcement, thats what the police state appratus is for, in case some people get upset. Next step is to give us the carbon dollar and carbon tax, and cause the world to dump the USD. Thats Obamas job.
In 1966, a report came out called a Report From Iron Mountain. The purpose of the report was to develop alternatives for war that would still allow the international oligarchs to maintain social control. The conclusion was they would have to establish an alternative credible threat, or otherwise people would work 3 day weeks and government could afford to provide stuff like free health care, retirement pay, etc. Imagine citizens having the time to check out what their government is really doing. That terrorized them. A number of ways of doing this were proposed. Terrorism, Environmental threats, UFO's, etc. Ring a bell?
In 1970, Nixon got the ball rolling on Environmentalism with the establishment of the EPA and declaring an Earth Day. There were other fronts opened as well.
The Club of Rome sounded the alarm on population and sustainability in 1972 (it's interesting, Club of Rome was formed in 1968, IPCC in 1988, and the UN in 1948, whats up for 2008?), and an oil crisis was manufactured in 1973.
NSSM 200 was prepared by Kissinger in 1974 outlining a strategy of population containment in countries with resources, which included food genocide.
On the economic side, plans were made to make 3rd world countries debt slaves so that when they defaulted they would be forced to do things like open up their markets and give us access to their resources, and that would keep them poor. This happened after we destabilized Iran and then sent saddam after Iran, triggering the 2nd oil crisis that drove prices up and allowed TLC Fed Chairman Volcker to raise interest rates to conquer the inflation that oil prices caused (that was just an excuse, the real reason was to trigger 3rd world nations to default on their debt and encourage US manufacturing to leave the US), and it's continued to today. Obama is listening to Volcker and his TLC crony Brzezinski.
Back to today. IPCC are serving these elitists who have declared themselves our masters and are using the GWOT, Peak Oil and Global Warming, Sustainability as a way to get you to consent to their rule.
Here is a link showing how they edited the 2nd AR with the scientists approval
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item03.htm
So trust in IPCC at your own peril. The same elitist groups behind the IPCC were also behind the International Eugenics Conferences almost a century ago. The Eugenics Society was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. After Hitler put it into practice, with their help, they came out with some programs to accomplish the same thing but under different names, using the UN.
Some more history they do not teach you.
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN was a Swiss-based organization, was founded in 1948, with the aid of the British Foreign Office. Under the cover of "conserving nature," the IUCN dedicated itself to
1. reduce the world's population, particularly in the developing sector; and
2. ensure that control of the world's raw materials remains in the hands of a tiny handful of large Anglo-Dutch multinationals.
To accomplish this, IUCN spokesmen have repeatedly insisted that there must be a world government.
Then in the same year we got UNESCO. Their president and Fabian Socialist, Sir Julian Huxley, called for a radical eugenic policy and defined their mission as follows: "Thus, even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy of controlled human breeding will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake that much that is now unthinkable may at least become thinkable."
In 1952 John D. Rockefeller III and John Foster Dulles found the Population Council to fund population control measures in 3rd world countries
In 1961 the World Wildlife Fund (WWF, now the World Wide Fund for Nature) was founded for one stated purpose: to raise money to expand the operations of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Prince Philip became head of the WWF-UK from the outset. Among his closest collaborators was Sir Julian Huxley, former president of the Eugenics Society, and a founder of the IUCN as well. Since Hitler had given eugenics a bad name, Huxley tried to sell his anti-human ideology through "conservation," as expressed in his statement, "the spread of man must take second place to the conservation of other species."
He brought this same conviction to his role as the first head of the United Nations Education, Social, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Philip also recruited a card-carrying Nazi into the leadership of the WWF, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands. Bernhard was the first head of the WWF-International, while Philip presided over the U.K. branch.
As head of the WWF, Philip openly called for population control, calling human population growth "the single most long-term threat to survival." Treating human beings like animals, he claimed in a 1981 article in People magazine: "The more people there are, the more resources they'll consume, the more pollution they'll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn't controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war." Kind of like whats happening today and has been for 30 years.
In 1988 The Prince of Genocide: Philip said "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
Philip's activities involved setting up "ecological reserves" that are used to preserve animals and serve as sanctuaries for terrorist insurgencies, campaigning against life saving major infrastructure projects, and opposing the most fundamental life saving measures, such as draining swamps.
In 1969 - Vice-President of Planned Parenthood-World Population Frederick Jaffe's "Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the U.S." contained a memo to Population Council president Bernard Berelson. It includes examples of proposed measures to reduce U.S. fertility, such as (a) encourage increased homosexuality, (b) fertility control agents in water supply, (c) encourage women to work, (d) abortion and sterilization on demand, and (e) make contraception truly available and accessible to all.
BTW, only a and b are problems for me.
In 1984 a World Bank report, "Toward the Sustainable Development of Sub-Saharan Africa," called for large-scale water projects to be "re-examined"—meaning cancelled—given the "extreme shortage of resources." No irrigation, no food.
In 1991 the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) was formed and began their assault on food and agriculture.. They mounted a campaign to force governments to remove land from agricultural production, in the name of "conserving" scarce resources. In the United States, an entirely new program was established, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). As of today, it has over 30 million acres locked up, out of a crop base of 365 million acres.
Then there is the issue of growing corn and using it for fuel. Today, this causes food prices to skyrocket and become unaffordable to the poor.
Due to that last post, you demonstrated that you are nothing but a Bush
shill and a closet supporter of his gang. I also think that I know who
you are, another closet Bushie who once used a different code name here.
Piss off ~SIGGY~.
~SIGURDUR~ Your last post hit before I'd finished mine, where I said that
I sensed that you were a nice person. Well, after reading your last "CUTE" nitey nite post, I've changed my opinion of you. You are a pig headed asshole. Those comments you just wrote about "feedback" are about as stupid as any I've ever read about the subject. And since you are not that stupid or ignorant, you are purposfully attempting to create friction here. Take your stupid shit and shove it up your ass, you incredible, denying, corrupt shithead.
Oh my God ~Sigurdur~! Sure, on occasion there may be open patches for a few hours in the ice at the North pole, or in Greenland, etc. Thick Ice shifts, stress cracks and breaks, leaving open spaces for a short time period, some are very large openings where a sub could surface without breaking through the ice. Our atomic subs can break through very thick ice, they were designed to do that. Openings in ice packs can occur when the outside air temperature may be 50 to 60 or more degrees below zero. That's normal. That is not what is happening to the ice packs in the Arctic now. They are thawing, not just cracking open from stress relief.
BTW, I have never said the methane release would "BURN". It will cause global warming to run amock and when the oceans methane burps out, we won't be able to breath. That's what I've said, and that's from Doctor M.J. Benton. Read the links I offered.
I do believe that the entire subject matter of this article, speaks for itself. ___ No one can argue it with any honesty or credibility.
~Sigurdur11~, I sense that you are a nice person and fairly intelligent. You're not as yet convinced about the reason for the current Greenhouse
effect on our atmosphere. There have been so many conflicting reports on
the issue, that I can understand your ignorance and bullheadesnes about the subject. Nevertheless, you're outnumbered and you are sadly mistaken to continue the denials. What does it benefit you by adding to the conflict? Many others who are a lot smarter than I have explained many good and credible things to you here about the subject, ___ listen to them.
You say you wish to see both sides of the issue. Well ~Sig~, both sides are readily available to study and comprehend. In addition, the evidence of the Arctic thaw is visually evident, you don't have to be a scientist to see it with YOUR own eyes. What's your problem? If you continue to be obtuse about it, then you will deserve to be harshly criticized, for the global warming issue is not a joke, it's deadly serious and deniers deserve no respect or tolerance from any who have a lick of common sense and honesty.
BTW ~SIG~, if you ever have the chance, check out the accent of those Islander ducks.
Ref to the subs:
The year was 1987, May 18th. There was open water on the north pole.
Ref the Vikings visiting the Inuit. That was during the MWP.
Quit simply, the Arctic has thawed before.
As to the scientists using the latest tecknology. To me this is an advance, and an advantage. Any clues, even new clues, that are the result of better instruments and models are a welcome advance in explaining climate performance.
Kem:
You are worried about methane and that in a few hours the earth will burn. I had read this awhile ago and took me some time to find it. From Real Clear:
Do Modelers believe feedbacks can cause the Earth's climate to be unstable or to "run away"?
[Response: Not under present conditions, no. Though it is likely that some hundreds of millions of years ago, we did enter into a 'Snowball Earth' condition. And in hundreds of millions of years hence, the sun will become a red giant and boil away the oceans (at which point you might get a runaway effect). But right now? Not a chance. - gavin]
Gotta get back to bed. Have a nice night.
~MIMICCS~ you finally are absolutely correct about something. I did
spell James Hansen as (H A N S O N.) You know what MIMI? When I wuz in schol,
I nevur wun a speling be eather.
Now why do you get rude and state for all to read here, that James
HansOn is my HIGH Priest of AGW? I quoted what HansOn had said while he
was in the position of the Director of NASA's Goddard Space studies. Never did Iimply that he was my "idol". HansEn is only ONE of MANY scientists I have quoted on the issue of global warming. I have to quote scientists, because I'm not a scientist MIMI and i can't even spel words very gud. If you don't wish to trust Hansen's findings and words, that's fine with me. Hang in
there with that crazy preacher you quote all of the time.
After reading all of the comments, I see where there is a mis-understanding
by several when global warming and or climate change is discussed. It is not only the average surface temperatures at any given location durng a years time that is the serious issue. The problem ALSO is "GREENHOUSE GASES" in our atmosphere, which do not allow heat to escape from our atmosphere as it should.
Co2 is a critical component in our atmosphere, as is some Ch4 and of course oxygen. Since-the-Industrial-age-began, Co2 in our atmosphere increased by (25%)! Co2 and Ch4 are "Greenhouse gases" which (trap heat) near the Earth's surface. An excess amount of either Co2 or Ch4 will intensify the Greenhouse effect and global warming is the end result.
Now let's say it with more technical writing instead of my normal eigth grade level, as I see tht we have a lot of pretty smart bloggers on this thread and a spelling teacher also. You know, eigth and ninth grade level writing
is a lot easier to decipher for many and a lot easier to write too. But, I'll attempt to give some tech-shit a shot here for a few paragraphs, since apparently we have some MENSA's aboard. Of course we've all seen a number of over-educted idiots in our time, Robert McNamarra for one comes to mind.
Let us discuss feedback analysis and homeostasis and an ecological homeostasis or a disturbed ecosystem. The ENTIRE mass of living matter on Earth, functions as a vast homeostatic superorganism that modifies it's planetary enviroment to produce the required conditions necessary for it's very own survival. In that context,the planet maintains homeostasis.
For ONE example: When atmospheric conditions are IN BALANCE, the ocean's phytoplankton thrive. For the past ten or so years, they are not thriving,
in fact, they are dying off at an alarming rate and to date, scientists are not at all certain of the reason. Global warming is highly suspect, others are man made pollutions such as leaking orjsut tossing atomic waste into the oceans, DU contamination, chemicals, plastics, etc. However, the phytoplankton decline directly corresponds with the current rather sudden Arctic thaw. O use arging that , it'sthawing alright and James Hanon was and is correct about that.
Out of balance and feedback? Certainly Co2 is an important ingredient in our atmosphere, we need it. Co2 and methane both naturally enter the atmosphere and nature takes care of it and maintains BALANCE and does so within a rather fine parameter. When the actions of humans, or say a massive astroid strike, or massive volcanic eruptions commense, those type of situations interfer with nature and unfavorable things may transpire and do so rather quickly.
During Earth's Permian era, volcanic eruptions caused the greatest mass extinction onEarth of all time. The enormous amount of Ch4, or methane, which was released into the atmosphere, wiped out nearly all life within hours. Had the oxygen creating microbes in the oceans been eradicted, Earth would have very likely evolved into another Mars, ___ a dead planet. Currently the amount of Co2 annually emitted by humanity, is equivelant to the emissions of 17,000 volcanos. Nature cannot handle he excess Co2 from our burning fossil fuels, it's out of balance.
Feedback is also very important. Global warming for any reason, excessive methane may be released, that in turn causes an accelerated global warming and that "feedbacks" to more methane releasing and pretty soon you have a vicious cycle, or global warming FEEDBACK. That is precicely what is transpiring in the Arctic as we type our comments here.
If ANY deny the Arctic is thawing at an alarming rate, or that Co2 and methaane are now entering the atmosphere at a rate which is alarming,
they are arging with MOST by far, the world's top climate and atmosperic scientists. I cannot argue with them, I'm stupid and cant spel rite, so back to the eight grade writing level. It are easier, and more fun.
~Sigurdur11~, if some NASA scientists have suddenly reversed their 2007 findings, I would certainly wonder if they are being pressured by those who write their pay checks. For example: Two weeks ago the EPA, another government agency, stated that actions by humanity, burning fossil fuels, specifically coal, was the cause of global warming. This week, those scientists have been muzzeled by the Bush administration and are not allowed to speak publically about the issue. MY my, imagine that. Will the atmospheric scientists at NOAA also be shut up, or ordered to reverse their scientifically proven findings? ___ Maybe.
Does anyone know if scientists can tell how far along the melting has gone? What I mean is that when ice changes to water there is a period in which it gets warmer until it gets up to 32 degrees F. Then there is a plateau during which it stays at 32 and remains as ice, but is absorbing heat needed to break the bonds that make it a solid. Once that heat is absorbed, melting is fast.
Hi ubrew12...I believe the answer is a shockingly short 100,000 years for the big white bear....Sad to say, I think the obvious fact--obvious because we can observe it--is that we have "evolved" an economic paradigm with reinforcement mechanisms so powerful as to overwhelm scientific data, and common sense, warning that our plans for infinite growth of the population and the material economy are going to have an unfortunate outcome for most of the people in the world, now and for a very long time in the future.
I keep talking about the root causes--pop, consumption, and equity--of the emerging crisis because more and more people are coming to understand the need for radical change, and I want to contribute to this advancement to the extent that I am able. Assuming that humans are going to survive, the sooner we understand and make the changes, the better for everyone and the sooner we can bring man back into a sustainable relationship with Mother Earth, the final and ultimate support system.
Mr. Sigurdur11:
You state that David Suzuki "has no credibility" and offer no reasons for your pronouncement. Why is that? In Philosophy 101 we called this sort of argument Ad Hominem (name calling). Unfortunately this fallacy is one of many used by climate change deniers (usually funded by Exxon).
Subs surfaced at the north pole, so the polar bear is NOT going extinct? Didn't evolve in the Arctic? I don't see the connection.
David Suzuki has no credibility. I have been following his ideas for 30 years.
As far as the polar bear.
People, take a look at the subs that surfaced AT THE NORTH POLE in 1987. May 18th I believe.
Oh well, I shant go on. No one will actually discuss things here.
Please check this website: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php
Most of the scientists listed by MiMiCcS are employed by institutes directly funded by Exxon. The truth is out there. We just have to follow the money trail.
Should we wait until the polar bear goes extinct to take action on global warming? How long does it take to evolve a polar bear, anyway? That's how long its been since the Arctic Ocean was THIS out of wack.
From David Suzuki Foundation website:
"The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the world - including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers, and rising sea levels - all point to the fact climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought.
The overwhelming majority of scientists that study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, comprised of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of China, India and Brazil. The Royal Society of Canada – together with the national academies of fifteen other nations – also issued a joint statement on climate change that stated, in part: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change."
Who are the climate change skeptics?
Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a very small band of critics continues to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change "skeptics" or "deniers", these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly – for example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public, and policy makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change.
Not surprisingly, the skeptics have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connections with public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to - in the words of one leaked memo - "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."
Over the years, the skeptics have employed a wide range of arguments against taking action on climate change - some of which actually contradict each other. For example, they have claimed that:
Climate change is not occurring
The global climate is actually getting colder
The global climate is getting warmer, but not because of human activities
The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but this will create greater benefits than costs
The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but the impacts are not sufficient to require any policy response
After 15 years of increasingly definitive scientific studies attesting to the reality and significance of global climate change, there has been a noticeable shift in the skeptics' tactics. Many skeptics no longer deny that climate change is happening, but instead argue that the cost of taking action is too high - or even worse, that it is too late to take action. All of these arguments are false and are rejected by the scientific community at large.
To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, a recent study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening or is human-induced.
These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One recent study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the skeptics.
This discrepancy is largely due to the media's drive for balance in reporting. Journalists are trained to identify one position on any issue, and then seek out a conflicting position, providing both sides with roughly equal attention. Unfortunately, the "balance" of the different views within the media does not always correspond with the actual prevalence of each view within society, and can result in unintended bias. This has been the case with reporting on climate change, and as a result, many people believe that climate change is still being debated by scientists when in fact it is not.
While some level of debate is of course useful when looking at major social problems, eventually society needs to move on and actually address the issue. To do nothing about the problem of climate change is akin to letting a fire burn down a building because the precise temperature of the flames is unknown, or to not address the problem of smoking because one or two doctors still claim that it does not cause lung cancer. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledges, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous consequences in the climate system."
webwalk:
It seems so easy to find scientists who do not agree with the consensus of man made global warming.
I have come to the conclusion that there is no sense trying to have a dialog with folks who won't look at both sides of the theory.
That you refuse to look at emperical evidence. I at least read the url's that are put up. You seem to refuse to talk about the url's that I put up.
I wish you luck in your life as I would hope you wish me the same. Stay safe, conserve resources as we all should.
That graph showing the yearly global average tempertures for the last century?
Sig and MiMi,
Well if we were to try to post a list of the scientists who support the general scientific consensus on human-caused global warming, our list of course would not fit in the CD comments section since it would run into the tens of thousands of scientists.
You can state the there is no consensus, because there remain a few individuals who continue to deny that the evidence demonstrates that humans have disrupted the climate - and of course many of the claims are not that humans have not disrupted the climate, but are specific disputes with narrow aspects of the overall theory. But the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and scientists of all fields consent - the climate is disrupted, by human activity. Not perfect 100% consensus, but vast and deep consensus.
Do you have an explanation for this fact? Please again, do not answer the question, please deny that the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of all scientists have come to agree that human activity has disrupted the climate. Do not attempt to explain this fact. Just deny it.
Laughing out loud.
By the way, i understand that Sig and MiMi are not here for discussion, they are here to take up space and disrupt the community. The reason Kem and others continue to post is not to actually converse with Sig and MiMi, it is to maintain a space for the truth so that other readers do not simply see the blather of the deniers and get confused about what scientists actually think.
They have studied the past extinctions. It's in the rocks, the leaf stomata, the deep sea sediment, the ice cores. It's all there. They have measured and documented the carbon, helium, irridium isotpes and the foraminafera and buckyballs.
They have pretty much ruled out impact except for one extinction. The ocean is a finite carbon sink. Has it reached its limit? What will the oceanic thermohaline conveyer do when the feedbacks from the carbon forcings push against the natural equilibrium?
Read all about it.........it's there if you want to educate yourself.
Right on IMFEDUP! We all tend to become so personally invested in our own particular visions of an Apocalyptic future. I know that I tend to believe in the Peak Oil/Olduvai Gorge/Meltdown of Civilization with a healthy dose of Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" to give it enough doomsday horror. But, in my heart of hearts, I hope that I (and Mr McCarthy) are wrong. Likewise in relation to Global Warming, it might not be so wise to always expect the worst, as this link tends to suggest:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/07/02/northwest-passage-still-impassable/
And I could be a member of Mensa if there was a club closer. I have been accused of having some different thoughts, but that is just how my mind works.
I predict that at some point in our lifetimes we will be using that wonderful magnetic field that the earth produces for power. I had a dream one night on how to do it, but upon awakening I couldn't write it down fast enough to capture it.
Someone will capture that dream.
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?
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.
joneden
Very decent of you to Sig.
My apologies if I was too harsh.
LOL. I knew that was coming.
That's not being uncivil... it's called chastising an angry mob. Calm down people.
Sig you certainly deserve courtesy. My apologies....Jon
Hey IMFEDUP.....i heard your plea for civility. I could have heard it a little better if it had not itself been so uncivil.
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_globa...
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."
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.
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.
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.
"...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
BugsBBunny III: I absolutely deny the existence of Santa, does that make me a "denier"?
I know....I know.....these fellows are denyers as well. Somehow science is getting in the way tho.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.....:)
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.
Hey Pshaw:
So you mean there is oil on Mars???????
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...
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.
Sorry for the double post, the first one had disappeared.
Hey ~Sigurdur~ is it true that Icelander ducks quack with ___ "Qvack __ Qvack"?
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.
You told us ~James Hanson~ is quite right ~SIG~. I agree with you there, and if he's quite right, ___ you're quite wrong.
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~?
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.
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.
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 . . .
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.
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) _____________
Ice is nice.
The Venusian climate is a little too hot for me.
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.
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…
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.
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.