global warning update.

[lazs2]

What do I suggest?   I suggest that we wait and see.  I suggest that we let the free market adjust.

Now, again... what do you suggest that we do about the inevitable global cooling just around the corner?

You are a lot like Co2... you are a trailer of climatic change not a cause.  

lazs

[Jackal1]

Did ya notice the track sweeping in the above article by the scientist?
I mean if you read it, it sort of says.....Well........we did say that , but we said it kinda might possibly be, but on the other hand it could be or could not be or it could be this other thing...............or something else or nothing at all.


Then again, I guess if someone had funded me (read that--big bucks) to gather and publish data and theoretical info to the public.......and then I found out that someone else had a better theory , back upped with facts from a few hundred years ago showing it to be a cycle..............I would get a little touch of politician speak to cover my butt too. Noone likes to shred their food ticket.

[Angus]

Jackal, didn't you read the article? Just the headline?
Here is a little line from it, and there are many many more...
"Dr Dick said the research did not suggest that global warming was not a reality.

"You couldn’t say, ‘The sea ice is coming back so therefore there’s no global warming’. It’s never going to be that simple," he said. "But the question now is the extent of global warming, how fast it will happen and whether there are any surprises on the way.

"We know there is warming and that it’s caused by humans, but it will be a great relief to many people if the ice comes back as opposed to going away.""

[beet1e]

Originally posted by lazs2
What do I suggest?   I suggest that we wait and see.  I suggest that we let the free market adjust.

The problem of glacial meltdown is not going to be solved by "market forces".

[Angus]

Spot on Beetle.
The market forces rule their ways in cycles that are nowhere near to the natural cycles of nature.
Hence the warming....

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
Jackal, didn't you read the article? Just the headline?
Here is a little line from it, and there are many many more...
"Dr Dick said the research did not suggest that global warming was not a reality.

Yea I read it Angus. I thought you might find it interesting.
Did you read my comment on it. That statement is an example of the track sweeping I was talking about.. ........ or another term we use here is C.Y.O.A.

Let`s look at a few more.....

"The finding opens the possibility that the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change."

"The possbility that" .......That`s a solid statement. OK...if it is cyclic movements (which you notice that noone is sayin yea or nay..C.Y.O.A. )....and its not a "harbinger of major climate change", then what happened to all the so called , no doubt about it, "Global warming is causing the ice caps to melt" statements made by the scientist. (And I might add, I believe global warming has been quoted as most definitely the cause of the melting by yourself and others here on this board.....along with part of the scientific community)Like I said sorta kinda maybe, but maybe not and might be something else. In other words "we don`t really have a clue what the hell is going on" but I`m gonna start C.M.O.A. . Just give them another grant and they can do an indepth study to come up with some more maybe/maybe not, kinda sorta, sometimes/sometimes not ,scientific research reports.

Here`s another.......
"As a result, Dr Chad Dick, a Scottish scientist working at the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromso, believes the next five to ten years will be a critical period in our understanding of sea ice and the impact, if any, of long-term global warming."

So now he is saying that it will be another five to ten years before they understand sea ice. Seems like only yesterday that the so called scientific  communityhad quite a few that were releasing reports/studies/findings/data to the effect that they understood sea ice totaly..............and that global warming was melting it. Translation: "We don`t know jack about sea ice like we said before, but I`m giving us another five to ten years for this to blow over and hope everyone will forget what we stated before." Mo money. C.Y.O.A.
Then there is the "of sea ice and the impact, if any, of long-term global warming."  If any??? What happened to it`s the global warming melting the caps? Basicaly what that says is we will just have to wait and see because we don`t have a clue. C.Y.O.A.

Then there is this one.......................... .
"However, Dr Dick warned that if the ice carried on melting, it would mean that man-made global warming had disrupted the natural process - with potentially disastrous results."

Notice the "if". Can`t get much more solid than that from a so called scientist.
OK...he goes on to say IF this happens........... Translation:then then it`s most definitely global warming again. .........................unle ss we decide it`s something else and we change our mind again. All according to how much money we get to release some more kinda, sorta, maybe/maybe not..IF scientific finding reports." C.Y.O.A.
I can put in an IF here. IF it had been any of my money that paid this bozo, someone`s butt would most definitely be in for a serious three legged race to the hospital.

Okie doke.then this..................
"The old records that we recovered from ships’ logs and other sources may show that similar cycles are present in sea ice."

Notice the "may show". So ...he`s got the records but hasn`t read them yet....or he`s read them and don`t understand them?

Now let me get this straight. Satellite data, research centers, computer analysis and scenarios...... all this ,and a dang, so called scientist is just now getting around to looking into the possibility that there just might be documents containing the history of the ice caps?  Man.......that some solid thinking and research. He must have skipped the history portion of his scientific education.

Then this little gem...............
""I’ve this gut feeling that within ten years from now we’ll know for certain whether we’re losing sea ice long term or whether it’s coming back."

Jeez....well that settles it then. He has a gut feeling. I know I`m convinced. How can you argue with a solid scientific statement such as "I’ve this gut feeling".
LMAO..Then the "within ten years...we`ll know for certain". C.Y.O.A.
Transaltion: "We don`t have a clue one way or the other. We`ll have to wait and see."
I beleive that`s what some of us have been saying all along...............and I didn`t receive any scientific grant.

And then this............
"Dr Dick said the research did not suggest that global warming was not a reality."

Of course he didn`t. After all it may or may not so he is C.H.O.A.
So...if the , "no doubt about it, global warming is a reality and the melting of the ice caps is proof" has hit a little glitch to the tune of ...."Ummmm we just found out after checking historical documents that we could just be full of crap". And global warming was the steadfast proof offered up by these edumuncated gentlemen for the proof of such, ........well I think somebody got ripped off by Mr. Gut Feeling in a big way.

And another rock solid statement that can`t be questioned................... .....
"You couldn’t say, ‘The sea ice is coming back so therefore there’s no global warming’. It’s never going to be that simple," he said. "But the question now is the extent of global warming, how fast it will happen and whether there are any surprises on the way."

LOL He also couldn`t say that the rock solid proof of global warming (melting ice) held any merit to begin with. Ooooops!
Yea the question now sure is "to what extent". Since it seems that global warming could just possibly and more than likely not be what all their scientific research supposedly revealed and was released as the gospel....I say "to what extent" can cats like these get by with ripping money off for bogus research grants to produce maybe/maybe, we haven`t got a clue, we just wanted a paycheck results.
Then the "how fast will it happen" line. I beleive that`s what they are supposed to be finding out and are being paid for, but since their orignal proof seems to be in question I beleive that`s about as scientific as he can get.
Then the "and whether there are any surprises on the way." Ummmmm...I wonder if he might be referring to the unkowns that can`t be factored in that myself and others have spoke about. Look at me Wilma, I`m a dadburn scientist!  It`s also another case of "we will have to wait and see because we don`t have a clue" scientificaly based statement.

And I certainly wouldn`t leave out the Green Party................

Robin Harper, a Scottish Green Party MSP, said that while he hoped Arctic sea ice would return, it could actually be a false sign of hope that global warming was not as serious as previously thought.
"All it would prove is that global warming doesn’t affect that particular cycle," he said.
"There would be no reason for us to be complacent if it comes back."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now...."it could actually be a false sign of hope that global warming was not as serious as previously thought."   Yea , it could be a false sign of hope......but it seems like "it just possibly might be" ( I`m catching on to this scientist talk quick)......a sign that they didn`t know anything that they were stating in the begining.
And yea, it might prove that global warming  doesn`t affect that particular cycle. The particular cycle that they didn`t have enough intelligence to include in the orignal findings that was held up as proof of global warming to begin with.
It just might also show that the whole kit and caboodle was horse droppings to begin with.
And if it comes back, "There would be no reason for us to be complacent".
Yep, we need to continue fixing something that didn`t exist in the first place.

Yea...........I`d say there was just a touch of track sweeping going on.

[Angus]

I shudder at the thought of you reading other debateable data Jackal
""The old records that we recovered from ships’ logs and other sources may show that similar cycles are present in sea ice."

Notice the "may show". So ...he`s got the records but hasn`t read them yet....or he`s read them and don`t understand them? "

Can you not see how weak this statement is? You're pitting modern sattellite data up against what old ships logbooks MAY SHOW.

FYI, I have very little doubts that the Icecap was smaller in the year 1000 than 1979. That much? don't even think so.

There may be evidence somewhere that may show that the icecap may have reached the current minimum sometimes perhaps

[cpxxx]

The Scotsman article is a good example of why I don't believe in human caused global warming.

    

Polar history shows melting ice-cap may be a natural cycle

The Scotsman | March 9, 2005
By IAN JOHNSTON

 

THE melting of sea ice at the North Pole may be the result of a centuries-old natural cycle and not an indicator of man-made global warming, Scottish scientists have found.

That makes sense but later he adds this comment to spare himself the criticism of the true believers.

Dr Dick said the research did not suggest that global warming was not a reality.

and this

"We know there is warming and that it's caused by humans, but it will be a great relief to many people if the ice comes back as opposed to going away."

and this

 

"All it would prove is that global warming doesn't affect that particular cycle," he said.

Why do they alway mispell effect.

So what he is saying is that the melting ice may be a natural cycle but we're making it worse, maybe.

Then's there the Gulf Stream paradox:

Gulf Stream could be switched off

The Gulf Stream has a major effect on Britain's climate, allowing palm trees to grow on the west coast of Scotland. Without it, Scotland's climate would be more like Canada.

I thought it was already a bit like Canada But seriously if there is global warming surely Canada will be a warm as Miami thus cancelling out the effect. Am I missing something.

But we're given a ray of hope and another paradox. More warmth means more ice???????

In a warmer world, more water from the sea will evaporate. Greater evaporation actually helps increase the amount of sea ice as fresh water running off the land freezes more easily than salt water in the sea.

 

That one article sums up all my misgivings about so called global warming. Evidence now suggests that this current warming cycle may be normal. This isn't the first time scientific evidence like this has been published.

But this warming cycle is now considered proof that we humans caused it.

I think as time goes on we will see more of this absurdity. I guarantee that five years from now if the melting process starts to reverse.  There will be two schools off thought. One is that 'Hooray we saved the Earth by reducing Co2 emissions' or the 'Don't get complacent, global warming is still a reality. We can expect these slight  changes over time.'

Hopefully by then some common sense will return. I won't bet on it though.

On another point, the sun has shone here for the last week and a half after one of the wettest May's on record. So of course, they are talking about a  water shortage and global warming is to blame.

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
I shudder at the thought of you reading other debateable data Jackal
 

Well.....I`m gonna have to agree with you on that Angus. I shudder at the thought of having to read such runaround article as this ,with statements that are so lame as to be laughable, actualy put in print quoting what is supposed to be a scientist. It`s nealy embarrassing.

Angus just a couple of notes here. The below quote came from the article.

""The old records that we recovered from ships’ logs and other sources may show that similar cycles are present in sea ice."

The quote below is mine.

Notice the "may show". So ...he`s got the records but hasn`t read them yet....or he`s read them and don`t understand them? "

Can you not see how weak this statement is?

Yes Angus I certainly can. I beleive I went to all the trouble to explain how weak I thought it was above. Don`t mix my quotes up with Dr. Gut Feeling.
That was the point........MAY SHOW is what ole Gut Feeling said. Maybe/maybe not ..coud be.or could not be. C.Y.O.A. as mentioned above.

You're pitting modern sattellite data up against what old ships logbooks MAY SHOW.

HUH? I`m not pitting anything against anything. Not sure where you get that.
You will have to explain to me how modern sattelite data would come into play concerning the ice cap cycles. I`m missing something here.

Now.....please remember that Gut Feeling made the MAY SHOW statement , not me.
What I was saying, was that I believe that if he had read the documents/logs, that they either would show or wouldn`t show it being cyclic. I would think that there would be entries in these logs containing latitude/longitude concerning the location and limits of the ice over a period of years. The MAY SHOW is just another example of track sweeping and C.Y.O.A.

There may be evidence somewhere that may show that the icecap may have reached the current minimum sometimes perhaps

Yes, I agree, but I also think it might be surprising. I just don`t know and I don`t have a gut feeling about it..could be.....or maybe not......but a possibility.............IF. ( Last week I couldn`t spell scientist. Now I R 1)

OK Angus..............I got to ask. Do you just totaly dismiss the theory by Bozo and crew that the melting might be a cyclic pattern?

I also got to say..you Aight Angus. You can hang.

[Angus]

Hang..or be hung...
(like a grand national winner, )

Well...
"I guarantee that five years from now if the melting process starts to reverse. There will be two schools off thought. One is that 'Hooray we saved the Earth by reducing Co2 emissions' or the 'Don't get complacent, global warming is still a reality. We can expect these slight changes over time.'"
Then we wait 5 years. Not a long time.
There might be the third school though. Like, "Dang, it's still melting. and WTF do we do now?"

Errr, this. We might be having a misunderstanding?
"You're pitting modern sattellite data up against what old ships logbooks MAY SHOW.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



HUH? I`m not pitting anything against anything. Not sure where you get that.
You will have to explain to me how modern sattelite data would come into play concerning the ice cap cycles. I`m missing something here."

This is the issue of the article. The N-Pole might be running cyclic (they talk about a 50 year cycle, wonder how that one went past WW2). But there is no data to suggest this apart from vaguely, while we have the last few decades or so quite well covered with hard and proof data, logged, photographed and then from sattelites.
So, no "gut" feeling about it. It's rather absolute from 1979 to today, and we do not yet have any data at all suggesting the status we have now, unless going VERY far back.

Then eventually, regarding the "discarding" of things. Well, I do not in the first place discard that the N-Pole cap is shrinking fast. I do not discard the theory that we humans may have something to do with it, and I definately do NOT discard the FACT that there are big cycles and at times rapid and wild changes in the earth atmosphere without human interference.
But....I've been promoting that the globe IS warming. This issue needs another thread

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus

This is the issue of the article. The N-Pole might be running cyclic (they talk about a 50 year cycle, wonder how that one went past WW2).  

Actualy it suggests 60 to 80 year periods. That would leave satellites out of the picture. It also states that it corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature.

But there is no data to suggest this apart from vaguely, while we have the last few decades or so quite well covered with hard and proof data, logged, photographed and then from sattelites.

Concerning the cylic period suggested satellite data would not be available . No satellites during the period.
I would like to know more of what the ship logs contain over the three hundred year period.

So, no "gut" feeling about it. It's rather absolute from 1979 to today, and we do not yet have any data at all suggesting the status we have now, unless going VERY far back.

I`m assuming by "absolute" concerning data that you are speaking of the ice melting during that period.
Seems like there was some dispute during a couple of periods wheter the ice was actualy melting/receding and some seemed to find that the reports stating ice melting were not true. Global warming seemed to be in question also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eample #1

Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: October 1, 2001
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

A series of recent studies shows that the polar ice caps, which should be shrinking if dire global warming theories are correct, are maintaining their mass and in fact growing slightly. The studies suggest satellite temperature readings, which indicate no global warming of the lower atmosphere, are more reliable than surface temperature readings, taken by humans under varying conditions, that had indicated a slow, gradual warming.

A study published in the December 3, 1999 issue of Science magazine, authored by Ola Johannessen, Elena Shalena, and Martin Miles, reported Arctic sea ice had declined by 14 percent from 1978 through 1998. In a related story, columnist Richard Kerr pondered "Will the Arctic Ocean lose all its ice?" The mainstream press ran with the story, giving dire warnings that global warming was upon us.

However, CO2 Science Magazine later noted that in the Johannessen study, "essentially all of the drop . . . occurs rather abruptly over a single period of not more than three years (87/88-90/91) and possibly only one year (89/90-90/91). Furthermore, it could be argued from their data that from 1990/91 onward, sea ice area in the Arctic may have actually increased."

More recent studies of the polar ice caps verify CO2 Science Magazine's skepticism, and show the polar ice caps are holding their own and actually growing slightly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#2
Arctic ice thickening, expanding

A study published in Geophysical Research Letters (Winsor, P., "Arctic sea ice thickness remained constant during the 1990s," Volume 28: 1039-1041 (2001)) found the same to be true in the Arctic. The study concluded, "mean ice thickness has remained on a near-constant level around the North Pole from 1986-1997." Moreover, the study noted data from six different submarine cruises under the Arctic sea ice showed little variability and a "slight increasing trend" in the 1990s.

Just off the Arctic polar ice cap, ice coverage in Greenland was also shown to be steady and likely increasing. A study in Journal of Geophysical Research (Comiso, J.C., Wadhams, P., Pedersen, L.T. and Gersten, R.A., Volume 106: 9093-9116 (2001)) concluded that, annual variances notwithstanding, the Odden ice tongue in Greenland exhibited no statistically significant change from 1979 to 1998. Moreover, proxy reconstruction of the ice tongue utilizing air temperature data indicated the ice covers a greater area today than it did several decades ago.

Viewed as a whole, the new ice cap studies indicate no global warming has occurred in recent decades, at least not in high latitudes. These findings also offer an important insight into one of the more significant controversies surrounding global warming theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, once again , all down the line, it seems some said yea, some said nay in the scientific community.

Then eventually, regarding the "discarding" of things. Well, I do not in the first place discard that the N-Pole cap is shrinking fast. I do not discard the theory that we humans may have something to do with it, and I definately do NOT discard the FACT that there are big cycles and at times rapid and wild changes in the earth atmosphere without human interference.

Hehe. Angus you shooting for a scientific position also or politician?

Understood. I beleive you have made it perfectly clear about the ice melting.
That is the basis of my question that you answered with ....well you didn`t answer. In your posts it seems that you primarily base your belief of global warming on the ice melting as solid proof.
I`ll ask the question a little more direct and simple.
Do you, or do you not believe that the cyclic periods theory in the article is a possibility?

[Angus]

So, you're pitting theories from at least 6 years ago against what we see today? I am afraid that the melting on the Greenland Glacier is not up to debate any more.
Same goes with the polar cap. While we now KNOW how much it has shrunk (the shrinking itself being debated until hard data is enough), we don't know how much it shrank before. Just that it's been there for a very long time. We do not know if it was ever that small after it was "established". So what do we know? It's smaller than we have evidence about in human times, and still shrinking.
60 to 60 years...that's BTW WW2 or at best WW1. Times past the sailship age. 60 years would be oo short I'm afraid....where did Bismarck try to sneak past the RN and how much ice is there today?????

[Jackal1]

Originally posted by Angus
So, you're pitting theories from at least 6 years ago against what we see today?  

LOL You are bound and determined to sign me up for the "Pitting" team one way or the other, aren`t you?
Once again Angus I am not pitting anything against anything. The article, as was stated, were examples of non-agreement/different theories. It also points out a great deal of flip flopping in a very short time.I also included the statement.."So, once again , all down the line, it seems some said yea, some said nay in the scientific community." I have not got my pom poms bought to cheer for either side. Like I said the best I can tell is, according to the scientific world is ........could be/could not be....maybe......kinda sorta.....IF......possibly... ....and as you pointed out...MAY SHOW....and....we will have to wait and see.

I am afraid that the melting on the Greenland Glacier is not up to debate any more. I am afraid that the melting on the Greenland Glacier is not up to debate any more.
Same goes with the polar cap. While we now KNOW how much it has shrunk (the shrinking itself being debated until hard data is enough), we don't know how much it shrank before. Just that it's been there for a very long time. We do not know if it was ever that small after it was "established". So what do we know? It's smaller than we have evidence about in human times, and still shrinking.

Angus, can you do me a favor? Can we get off of what you seem to beleive is the debate here........Melting ice or no ice melting.  OK...the ice is melting. I know this because Angus, by gawd ,told me so.
The question I am asking about is not whether or not the ice is melting. The cause is what I am talking about. You have stated global warming as the cause you belive that is responsible for the melting. In the article we are talking about, the theory that it could possibly be,  and I quote from the article..."After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature."

The cause of the melting ice is evidently up for grabs in some scientific circles.
I will ask my question for a third time. Sorry for the confusion.
Here goes........Do you or do you not beleive that the proposed theory in the article is a possibilty?
Once again, not if the ice is melting or not, but do you or do you not believe the theory proposed in the article is a possiblity?
DISCLAIMER: I take an oath, that in this instance, I am not guilty of "pitting".

60 to 60 years...that's BTW WW2 or at best WW1.

Actualy 60 to 80 years.

Times past the sailship age.

According to the article , the ships logs and artic explorers are spanning the last 300 years. That would include a few of the cyclic periods.
It is also stated in the article, and I quote......."This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature."
Note:Pitting denied.

60 years would be oo short I'm afraid....where did Bismarck try to sneak past the RN and how much ice is there today?????

Here we go with the ice melting again. OK....but in a 60 to 80 year cycle, I don`t beleive it was mentioned anywhere that there was an instant freeze/defrost switch. It would be over a 60 to 80 year period, but that falls back to the melting or not melting debate you seem to be trying to engage me in.

Just so you won`t forget, my question is, once again....Do you or do you not beleive that the proposed theory in the article is a possibilty?

[beet1e]

Originally posted by Jackal1
....we will have to wait and see.

Ah yes, another thread in the Lazsite "wait and see" school of thought. Wait and see what? Wait and see to watch cities like London and New York under a few feet of water? Wait and see Miami become an offshore island, 50 miles off the coast of Florida? You and I will be dead by then, but are you saying we should simply do nothing, because it won't be our problem?

Some notes from the US Energy Information Administration which sources official energy statistics from the US Government. Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as “greenhouse gases.” These gases allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). Greenhouse gases absorb this infrared radiation and trap the heat in the atmosphere. Over time, the amount of energy sent from the sun to the Earth’s surface should be about the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, leaving the temperature of the Earth’s surface roughly constant.

Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), while others are exclusively human-made (like gases used for aerosols).

Why Are Atmospheric Levels Increasing?

Levels of several important greenhouse gases have increased by about 25 percent since large-scale industrialization began around 150 years ago (Figure 1). During the past 20 years, about three-quarters of human-made carbon dioxide emissions were from burning fossil fuels.

From the above, we can deduce the following facts.

• CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
• Greenhouse gas traps sunlight, and prevents the sun's infra red radiation being reflected back into space.
• Global warming is the result of the above ^
• Levels of several important greenhouse gases have increased by about 25 percent since large-scale industrialization began around 150 years ago.
• During the past 20 years, about three-quarters of human-made carbon dioxide emissions were from burning fossil fuels.
• The meltdown of ice at the north pole and glaciers around Greenland is indeed happening - see Angus's earlier posts.
• According to US Department of Energy statistics, in 2003 the total world CO2 output exceeded 25 billion tonnes. This will rise with the industrialisation of India and China. .XLS document from Energy Information Administration

So basically, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which causes global warming, and we know for a fact that the glacial meltdown is indeed happening. Now, are we just going to sit around, shooting the breeze, deciding how we should apportion the blame between Man and Mother Nature? Or are we going to do something about it? I've already made up my mind which camp I'm in, and it isn't the "wait and see" camp.

[Pooh21]

So does Algore's A Convienent Lie have cool disaster footage like the day after tomarrow? I might go see it if so