North pole to melt this year?

Bruce Lieberman in the Yale Forum on Climate Change does a nice job of summarizing the subject of changes to Arctic ice.
The Link

Just a few quotes:

In discussing the original article that appeared in the Independent -

“Without a doubt, climate change is profoundly and rapidly altering the Arctic environment - amplifying the summer retreat of sea ice, thawing permafrost, making lakes and peat bogs more vulnerable to methane venting, and accelerating melting glaciers on Greenland.
But variability from year to year can cloud the big picture. Reporters do their readers a disservice when they point to any single development in the Arctic as emblematic of the long-term rise in average global temperatures.”

Referencing Richard Alley (a REAL climate scientist) –

“The dramatic retreat of summer sea ice in 2007, by itself, "doesn't matter hugely," Alley replied by email in response to questions from The Yale Forum. "That it is part of a highly significant and well-attributed climatically significant trend does matter. It appears that some members of the public want to see the next year to decide what is going on; nature has a longer attention span."”

Lieberman discusses the difference between thin new ice and thick old ice, the impact of volcanoes on the floor of the Arctic, and many of the other issues that have been brought up in this thread. The article is well worth reading.

texasflag.gif
 
The BBC reports that this year appears set to be the coolest globally this century. The UK Met Office reports that in the first half of the year temperatures have been more than 0.1 Celsius cooler than any year since 2000. This, on the surface supports MOP's thesis, however, the article goes beyond this single year's statistics.

Despite this one-year anomaly “2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease.”

The Link

MOP’s mistake is to look at a single year and suggest that global warming isn’t real. Obviously, that’s not what the data show.

Even in terms of Arctic ice cover, a weak indicator of climate change (thickness or mass is more important), an examination of MOP’s tables shows that 2008, while slightly behind 2007, shows the second greatest loss of ice cover in the short time series he has chosen to report over and over. It’s almost as if he believes that if he posts the same irrelevant table often enough he will convince us that he’s right about the issue of anthropogenic climate change.

If there’s a lesson to be learned from this thread, and that’s doubtful, it’s that a single year’s data is worthless in evaluating a trend. Climate scientists overwhelmingly believe climate change is real, is caused at least in part by man’s activities, and poses a significant threat to our quality of life. Opposing this scientific consensus are the anti-science bloggers, a few industry parasites, the Bush Administration, and MOP et ilk.

It may be too late to completely reverse the effects of green-house gas pollution. But there are things we can do to reduce the effects. The costs will be high. The costs of doing nothing will be higher.


texasflag.gif
 
Preliminary Unofficial Day 236 Race Report
2008 has another moderate day, now about 640K behind 2007.
8 24 2002 6.117188 0.007500
8 24 2003 6.448125 -0.034063
8 23 2004 6.135313 -0.073281
8 24 2005 5.853125 -0.030625
8 24 2006 6.043438 0.001875
8 24 2007 4.875625 -0.032813
8 23 2008 5.514844 -0.040312
 
nothing as a minister hayden. why?

i just love truth in general and i sense lots of distortions in this whole debate. but as a minister....nothing.
 
sorry GT, i accidentally cut off the "M"....it was an innocent mistake.

i stand by everything else i said. you are crossing into dishonesty at this point by continuing to misrepresent me so blatantly. you should to stop doing that because it isn't right. i am very clear about my position throughout this thread and others. your distortions are just that.
 
Is it purely accidental that many of the same people who deny climate science also deny evolution and sometimes other areas of science? Is it accidental that these folks tend to be fundamentalist Christians who are politically ultraconservative? {Examples will be provided upon request}

However, I'm sure MOP's motivation is purely scientific.

texasflag.gif
 
Why do you keep bringing anti-Christian rhetoric to this debate? I have not seen mop qualify any of his statements in Christian terms. Regardless of mop's personal religious philosophy, this only proves your prejudice.

Your view on religion serves no purpose here. This is a scientific discussion; take your intolerant faith elsewhere.
 
I find great entertainment value in watching the attacks on mop. He brings data to the table while the others, mostly, bring personal attacks and deflections.
 
Answer the two questions Gadfly. If the answer to both is 'yes', then religion is indeed irrelevant to a discussion of science denial. If the answer is 'no', then MOP's position in this discussion may explain his motivation. I would dearly love to understand why MOP is so strongly anti-science.

texasflag.gif
 
Probably because religion involves a "leap of faith" to believe certain tenets, and he may be using this to fuel his views of other fields as well.
People want their religious views to jibe with science, and this is not always possible without some creative mental gymnastics, i.e. creationism. I'm not attacking religious views, not as the basis for strong moral values, but I can't agree with the dismissal of scientific findings based on religious views.
 
GT and accurate, what you are failing to show (and therefore successfully revealing your bigoted position) is that my faith is in any way related to my skepticism of Anthropogenic Global Warming. any attempts to jive the two are purely speculative as i have already told you that my faith doesn't inform this position at all......i have no problem believing that man can GREATLY harm creation. man has proven this extensively. my skepticism is due to the lack of proof that i view in terms of global warming as well as the 7 years of no warming and the recent downturn in temperatures in SPITE of CO2 levels rising significantly during that period.......

how do you respond to this? GT repeatedly shows his bigotry, but how about you accurate?

i appreciate the support of outsiders who see my data and understand why i question anthropogenic causes. it makes me laugh to see those who believe but put forth little evidence......yet i am called the man of faith in this issue. clearly the most faith is being exhibited by GT in his love affair with whatever is said by AGW proponents.
 
I haven't taken the time to browse through the preceding 18 pages, but has anyone referenced studies by paleoclimatologists? Or distinguished between the various models used to study global warming: glacier based, ocean based, land based, etc? Using air temperatures is, from what I have read, is one of the poorer measurements by which to measure temperature: too much noise to signal ratio.
 
Fondren....you would be wrong. i have explicitly said otherwise. i have no problem believing we could EASILY change the climate. i just don't believe we have had much to do with the current temperature rise.

so do you bigoted types even bother listening to who you are stereotyping or do you just cram us all into a box with whatever label you prefer and go from there? this thread is unbelievable.....

johnny....i was talking about what got me interested in the issue first of all. i have done tons of research since that point and am willing to discuss this. you have added nothing to the discussion though.......but i guess the "joke's on me?"

i will look forward to getting your thoughts in another 6 months if the temperatures continue to drop.......
 
depends johnny.....at the current rate of dropping, 6 more months could mean (i am not saying this is what will happen obviously) a complete wiping out of any historic warming trend. at what point do we bag it and say we need a new theory?
 
gap is narrowing. two big days in a row:

Preliminary Unofficial Day 239 Race Report
2008 has another big day, now about 450K behind 2007.
8 27 2002 5.995313 -0.043906
8 27 2003 6.365469 -0.021875
8 26 2004 6.070625 -0.043906
8 27 2005 5.796094 -0.033594
8 27 2006 5.968125 -0.025625
8 27 2007 4.773906 -0.044532
8 26 2008 5.231719 -0.073594
 
What in hell does MOP think this crap proves? 2008 isn't the most ice free year in a series? No, it's the second most. Compare 2008 with each of the other years MOP provides data for. The ice cover in the Arctic is greatly reduced. This is what the climate change models predict. Even if 2008 had significantly more ice than 2007, one year does not negate a trend. But that not even what this short time-series shows. 2007, relative to the available data, is in line with the predicted trend.

What silliness.

texasflag.gif
 
GT...i am just being faithful to follow up on the typical global warming hype article that started this thread. you can bet if the article had been correct you and others on here would be harping on it. there are tons of articles like this one that never get followed up on. i too realize that one year is a very small data point and i have said so many many times. just like using last year as a single data point (the lowest point in 30 years) is silly.......

don't worry, i will continue to post other threads on global warming too. i know you are concerned that i am going to focus so much on this one article that i don't respond to other issues with global warming. rest assured my bigoted friend, i will continue to post on other related issues as well.
 
mop - don't the global warming models suggest that there will be a warming trend with wider fluctuations than before? would that not fit with what is happening now?
 
2nd lowest level on recordThe Link

Regardless of how this year's Arctic ice melt finishes, either worst on record or 2nd worst, the odds that global warming will not only continue, but increase in rate, is almost a certainty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top