The return of fall temperatures have ended the annual Arctic melt, leaving the Arctic sea ice cover just shy of a record low, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Centre.
Expect a flurry of stories in the denier press suggesting that this means global warming has ended.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
yeah maybe 10% more ice
yeah maybe 10% more ice doesn't mean anything much in one year or... maybe we'll have a 30 - 40 year trend of increasing arctic ice. That is the 20th century trend. warming, cooling, warming. The idea that we may be turning a corner towards temporary cooling seems plausible.
If you ignore
the science.
Science struggles to explain
Science struggles to explain the present, and fails miserably when attempting to predict the future. Once in a while they get the past half right.
climate science & evolution
"Science struggles to explain the present and fails miserably when attempting to predict the future." Science struggles, but that doesn't mean it does badly. And if there's a better way of making predictions about the future than applying general principles learned in science, I'd be curious to hear about it. Science predicts that persistent selection pressures applied to pests (via pesticides, etc) would result in increased resistance. Science predicts that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (and thereby slowing the rate that heat is lost to space from the Earth) will warm the atmosphere. Both of these predictions are being confirmed.
Wow. Holy profound denier statement, Batman!
So if "Science" struggles to explain the present - and, according to you, they get it right once in a while - does that mean that if you were to jump off the top of the CN tower, the law of gravity states that you have a 50% chance (or better, since it is "once it a while") of getting up unscathed?
*applauds* Such a brilliant platitude, Rick. Can we have more pearls of wisdom from you, oh wise one?
Hey Rob. Welcome back. The
Hey Rob.
Welcome back.
The slight increase in arctic ice in 08 is only a mass the size of California.
Hardly signifigant.
unless it had been LESS!
Can we say catastrophy?
"We" certainly can't spell
"We" certainly can't spell it.
Leave it to Gary
to not know the difference between "mass and "area."
Not so! The "record" may not
Not so! The "record" may not have been set, but your story ignores the fact that the permanant Arctic sea ice is continuing to disappear. See the story at this link:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1558195/arctic_sea_ice_still_shrinking/. The facts you read there are straight from NASA. You can also watch a couple of very good animations of the ice shrinking and of the loss of Arctic albedo.
Temperature Trends
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=35857
Temperature trends:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/uah7908.JPG
Yep, we are warming alright -- NOT!
When are you guys going to explain the drop in temp from 1945-1975 in spite of a FOUR FOLD increase in CO2 emissions?
It has been
explained, repeatedly: aerosols. Don't blame anyone else for your own failure to pay attention.
Peer reviewed paper!!
Peer reviewed paper!! Geeze, don't you guys get it. Every time to demand peer reviewed from the skeptics does not mean you guys get to not rely on peer review.
Carefull, I have the forcings data from Hansen.
Peer review
cnsnews and icecap are peer reviewed? Amazing.
Peer Reviewed
This is http://icecap.us/images/uploads/uah7908.JPG
Instead of smearing the article, why don't you deal with the facts in that article? http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=35857
"Dr. Bruce West, the chief scientist of the U.S. Army Research Office’s mathematical and information science directorate, sees a strong link between the dynamics of the sun and the Earth’s ecosystem.
In the March, 2008 issue of Physics Today, West wrote, “The Sun could account for as much as 69 percent of the increase in Earth’s average temperature.”"
"There is data going all the way back to 1976 that show Mars has also experienced global warming. The Martian ice cap has been melting during the same time period that human-caused emissions have been identified as the culprit behind global warming on Earth, he said. "
"As it turns out, this warming trend could be over anyway, according to Easterbrook, the geologist from Washington State. A slight cooling period that began to take hold in 1998 could endure for the next 30 years, he forecasts.
A phenomenon known as the “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (warming and cooling modes in the Pacific Ocean) points the way, in his view. "
Where's the peer reviewed
Where's the peer reviewed papers on tha aerosols? I'm waiting...
Prediction
Ok, you alarmists, let's see you put your money where your mouth is. If the Arctic ice continues to grow over the next 5 years, will yu give up AGW? If not, how many years will it take?
The same old,
same old "how many years will it take to give up on AGW" meme.
And predicated on a very big "if" at that.
In other words, the computer guy from Kamoka has nothing substantive to bring to the discussion.
Too chicken to make a stand
Too chicken to make a stand eh? What's so difficult? Here, I'll make it easier for you. Should the ice continue to shrink and the world warms up over the next 5 years I'll accept AGW. Now can you do the reverse?
Criteria
What is your warming criteria? Ice area, ice extent, atmospheric temperatures, sea temperature, global heat content. Choose a target that respects the complexity of the climate.
interesting
Hey that's interesting (I disagree somewhat with Exusian): you're putting a pretty specific scenario forward (although I agree with Richard C that it needs to be more specific) on a limited time step. I think there should probably be escape clauses regarding major volcanoes, etc, but I think this is something worth looking at. Are you proposing to compare single values for 2008 to 2013? Or are you proposing to compare trends?
Criteria
Sure, simple criteria I would accept.
1) Clear acceleration in sea level rise that breaks out of the decdal variation.
2) Tempteratures rise, as opposed to currently falling http://icecap.us/images/uploads/uah7908.JPG
3) Ice in the Arctic hit new lows. Say in 5 years hits at least 3 new lows.
4) Sea temps return to decade long warming trend, not the current cooling trend taking place (that experts say will last 30 years at least).
Thus the reverse would be your acceptance that AGW is falsified. Right?
Big step back!!!
Hey JR, looks like you couldn't keep to what you'd suggested just a couple of posts above. Now you need 'clear' acceleration of sea level rise. This is an add on, and you need to define 'clear'. You fail to specify what measure of temperature rise. 3/5 years have to be records! Geez, during the clear 30 year decline in Arctic sea ice, how many times did that happen? You realize that if all Arctic sea ice melted next year (highly unlikely), a new record couldn't ever occur -- so that would be 1/5 years. Why don't you just state that the linear regression slope has to remain the same or get steeper than now or something? Sea temps for a decade -- are you switching to a 10 year term now?
Okay, so you're asking if I'll change my position if there's a clear decrease in sea level rise, temperatures clearly fall, Arctic ice hits 3 new highs in the next 5 years, and sea temps decrease for 10 years? As I said, it would be nice to have more specificity, and there should be escape clauses because short term things can overcome the long term trend, but I think I can risk it -- yes I'll change my position if that happens. However, it seems to me that you've set up a system in which neither of us changes our position. Try again?
Never Say Die
JR, 10 years and counting of no warming (in fact a slight cooling) has not shaken the detemrination of the warmies. They will never give it up. It is not about facts; it is about faith. Global warming is a central theme of Gaia Worship. And, oh yes, keeping the dollars rolling in for the Profits of Doom -- Gore and Suzuki.
I rather prefer it without Rob
But since he's refusing to be banned, here's something that anybody can do, even Rob -- compare what happens to the trend line in August sea ice when 2008 is added.
Compare the slope of the line in this 2008 figure:
http://tinyurl.com/4z5pm7
to the slope of the line in this figure 2007 figure:
http://tinyurl.com/2pcuqv
See how the slope of the line is even steeper after the 2008 datum is added? Littlemore is correct to denigrate the AGW-deniers for misguided or disingenuous interpretations of the data.