www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall More Proof of Global Warming?

That, too, appears to be cyclical:

NOAA: Icecaps Coming Back to Original Levels

February 19, 2008

NEW evidence has cast doubt on claims that the world’s ice-caps are melting, it emerged last night.

Satellite data shows that concerns over the levels of sea ice may have been premature.

It was feared that the polar caps were vanishing because of the effects of global warming.

But figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the “lost” ice has come back.

Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.

The data flies in the face of many current thinkers and will be seized on by climate change sceptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

A photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg has become one of the most enduring images in the campaign against climate change.

It was used by former US Vice President Al Gore during his Inconvenient Truth lectures about mankind’s impact on the world. But scientists say the northern hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades.

They add that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966.

The one exception is Western Europe, which has – until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10C in some places – been basking in unseasonably warm weather. The UK has reported one of its warmest winters on record.

Link [noworldsystem.com] Also see this story [express.co.uk] and this story [newsmax.com].

--

These stories were an easy find, and were from early 2008. The data for winter 2009 is not yet all reported yet, but I've seen a few news stories that indicated that after a very harsh winter this past winter the ice caps might be back to about where they were in the early 1960s. Apparently warming and cooling cycles are normal.

I like the closing line on one of the stories: "If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death." In truth, however, none of the measured data suggests global warming. It all suggests the same type of climate change the earth has always undergone, from before the industrial age.

My dad is 83, well he tells everyone he is 38 and next year will be 48, anyway - he says this has all happened before in his lifetime. It's nothing new, just the instant 'news media' is new and they have to have something to talk about.

An interesting turn news article

BBC NEWS
Gore climate film's nine 'errors'
A High Court judge who ruled on whether climate change film, An Inconvenient Truth, could be shown in schools said it contains nine scientific "errors".

Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools - if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.

He was ruling on an attempt by a Kent school governor to ban the film from secondary schools.

The Oscar-winning film was made by former US Vice-President Al Gore.

Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore's central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.

In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.

These say teachers should point out controversial or disputed sections.

Without the guidance, updated after the case was launched, the government would have been breaking the law, the judge said.

The government has sent the film to all secondary schools in England, and the administrations in Wales and Scotland have done the same.

The film won two Oscars.

'Landmark victory'

Mr Justice Burton told London's High Court that distributing the film without the guidance to counter its "one-sided" views would breach education laws.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families was not under a duty to forbid the film, provided it was accompanied by the guidance, he said.

"I conclude that the claimant substantially won this case by virtue of my finding that, but for the new guidance note, the film would have been distributed in breach of sections 406 and 407 of the 1996 Education Act", he said.

The nine errors alleged by the judge included:

# Mr Gore's assertion that a sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of ice in either West Antarctica or Greenland "in the near future". The judge said this was "distinctly alarmist" and it was common ground that if Greenland's ice melted it would release this amount of water - "but only after, and over, millennia".

# Mr Gore's assertion that the disappearance of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro in East Africa was expressly attributable to global warming - the court heard the scientific consensus was that it cannot be established the snow recession is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.

# Mr Gore's reference to a new scientific study showing that, for the first time, polar bears had actually drowned "swimming long distances - up to 60 miles - to find the ice". The judge said: "The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm."

The case was brought by school governor Stewart Dimmock, from Dover, a father of two, who is a member of the New Party.

His lawyers described the ruling as a "landmark victory".

Mr Dimmock said: "I am elated with today's result, but still disappointed that the film is able to be shown in schools.

"If it was not for the case brought by myself, our young people would still be being indoctrinated with this political spin."

The judge awarded Mr Dimmock two-thirds of his estimated legal costs of more than £200,000, against the government.

BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said the ruling would be "embarrassing for Mr Gore" but would not affect the government, which said it was happy that the judge did not dismiss the film's mainstream argument.

But, he added, this controversy could encourage the public to think there was scientific doubt about the facts of climate change.

Children's Minister Kevin Brennan had earlier said: "It is important to be clear that the central arguments put forward in An Inconvenient Truth, that climate change is mainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases and will have serious adverse consequences, are supported by the vast weight of scientific opinion.

"Nothing in the judge's comments today detract from that."

He had previously said the updated guidance made "it clearer for teachers as to the stated IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] position on a number of scientific points raised in the film".

Notes to teachers on the guidance, on the government's Teachernet website, say: "An Inconvenient Truth is a film that has had a big impact. Its aim is to make the science and the arguments about global warming and climate change and its effects accessible to all audiences. It also presents a powerful case in favour of one particular type of political response to climate change.

"However, in parts of the film, Gore presents evidence and arguments which do not accord with mainstream scientific opinion. This guidance points out, on a scene by scene basis, the areas where further input will be required from teaching staff. This guidance is designed to help teaching staff encourage their pupils to assess the validity and credibility of different information sources and explore different points of view so as to form their own opinions."

Shadow Environment Secretary Peter Ainsworth said: "This is further evidence of the Government being all over the place on climate change.

"Instead of grabbing the first thing they could think of and then shooting it out to schools, the Government should put together a proper, up to-date, education pack about climate change - based on current evidence."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm

Published: 2007/10/11 08:10:26 GMT

© BBC MMIX

When a people stop believing in God, they will believe just about anything.

An Inconvenient truth for Al Gore is that the science backing up his award winning film, is flimsy at best and downright scientifically contestable at worst.

There is and has been climate change. The exact cause may be a mixture of factors, rather than a singular factor as the "global warming caused by mankind" faction would like us to believe.

A best reason to go "green" is simple economics; In that the less dependence we have on foreign (and highly ustable) sources of oil, we as a nation, and an economy, have a far better chance of surviving the turmoil which is most definitely coming our way in the next decade.

Over the past 30 years, global carbon dioxide levels have grown rather moderately in both North America and Europe, however, China and other parts of Asia which have undergone dramatic industrialization over the same period of time have exhibited equally dramatic increases in CO2 levels. The exponential industrial growth of China and Asia over the past 30 years directly mirrors the dramatic shrinking of the polar ice caps. Perhaps the two events are unrelated, coincidental, or partially related.

It must be noted that China's population is four time that of the USA's and India is expected to surpass China's population in the comming generation. Car ownership (defined as having access to a car) is estimated to be as high a 90% in the USA and only 6% in China and the Indian's are 'somewhere' below the Chinese. American car ownership is flattening out, but China and India which are rapidly indutrializing have aggressive plans to increase car ownership for their citizens. CO2 and other gasses are expected to soar to levels far beyond those of today.

It's not just automobile carbon dioxide that we need to worry about. Methane gas which is produced by animals (ex: cows and pigs) and land fills is of even more concern because this gas heats the atmosphere even more than CO2 - up to 10 times more ! Going green in this case has nothing to do with dependence on foreign oil. It's about keeping methane gas out of the atmosphere. Eating less meat and learning how to recycle to keep methane gas out of the atmosphere are two solutions.

The methane problem may become even more dramatic as the polar ice caps melt away. The largest reserves of methane gas in the world are thought to be located at the bottom of the Northern Sea under the polar ice caps. The polar ice super cools the water over the methane gas which keeps it 'compressed' at just below the sea bead. It is feared that as the polar ice melts, the sea water will 'warm up' and will have less capacity to keep the methane gas in place just below the sea floor. It is thought that this methane gas will simply start to 'percolate' to the sea surface where it in turn will further superheat the atmosphere.

The "inconvenient truth" is that most people (many Christians included) around world believe that greenhouse gases are a serious threat to the Earth's atmospheric ecology. Believing in God and believing that man can polute / destroy the global ecology / atmosphere are not incongruent unless of course you belong the US Republican Party.

I.F.

JF,

The inconvenient truth is that the ice caps are back to where they were in the 1960s. The warming and cooling cycles appear to be cyclical.

Also, the percentage of auto ownership is irrelevant. It's total output that counts. One may rightly lobby for lower emissions but one should note that the carbon dioxide output of all the vehicles in the United States amounts to 1.5% of the world's total.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s greenhouse gasses were condemned as causing global cooling. Remember the 'The ice age is coming' cover on Time magazine? Then it was blamed for global warming. The theory is that that greenhouse gases block the sun and cause the earth to cool. But the predictions from 30 years ago just have not come true.

What matters is not what many good Christians believe. Good Christians could believe the earth is flat and they would be wrong.

What matters is solid science. Measured temperatures show periods of global warming and cooling - natural climate change. The earth's temperature was measured to be at the same temperature at the end of 2007 as it was in 1930. There is no evidence of man-made global climate change based upon measured scientific data from the past 80 years.

John

It appears to me that Global Warming is partially based on some facts and the rest is well "a leap of faith". Al Gore and his crowd resemble more of a cult than research driven.

I guess what I am driving at is to me it seems pretty easy to believe that a career politician Al Gore would jump on a populist idea like global Warming without letting the science community hash out any of kinks to the theory and use it to advance his own popularity, can someone say Nobel Peace Prize!

Dear Pane Administrator,

Contrary to what you state, greenhouse gases were never thought to cool the planet. In fact, as far back as 100 years ago it was hypothesized that greenhouse gases such CO2 were heating the planet, and the theory remains intact. If I'm wrong on this one, I will throw an extra $100 into the collection plate tomorrow morning.

In the 1970’s and 1980’s it was primarily atmospheric particulate matter which was of concern. It was theorized that particulate matter in the atmosphere could dramatically refract light, and if left uncontrolled could start cooling the planet. Given that there is plenty of scientific evidence that atmospheric particulate matter can in fact cool the Earth, the theory is not without basis. For example, volcanic eruptions have in the past created great plumes of ash which have covered the Earth and lowered the atmospheric temperature. Dramatic government (EPA) legislature of the same era helped avert the environmental crisis. For example, industrial smoke stacks were forced to be retrofitted with ‘scrubbers’ to remove most particulate matter and in many cases greenhouse gases. Just ask anyone who lived in California in the 1970’s about the ‘smog’ which once covered Los Angeles. Industries which could not operate ‘clean’ were forced out of the state and you can again see the sky in midday Los Angeles.

Some scientists claim as you have stated that there has been no overall temperature change since the 1930’s, and others claim that up to a 1 degree or more general temperature increase has occurred over this generational time span. Let’s assume for argument sake that the truth is somewhere in the middle, and that a 0.5 degree overall temperature change may have occurred. Let’s further assume that this half degree change is statistically insignificant relative to temperature fluctuations over the millennia.

What is not controversial is that the Northern Polar ice caps have receded far beyond any previous point, including since the 1930’s. Similarly, all Northern Hemisphere countries have experienced receding alpine glaciers over the past decades, and just like the polar ice caps, they have been receding at an alarming rate for the last 30 years. Canada has recently established permanent military patrols in that country’s far North in anticipation of a permanent year round maritime passage which has been a dream of explorers and mariners for centuries.

The 'global warming' theory is that it is the ice which has been cooling the planet and ultimately stabilizing the atmospheric temperatures. Just as an ice pack in a cooler keeps the temperature constant, the polar ice caps help keep the temperature at an equilibrium over time and hence why we have not experienced dramatic temperature changes over the decades.

The question of course is ‘what is going to happen when the ice pack is no longer available to cool the cooler ?’. What is going to happen to the Earth’s temperature when the Polar ice and alpine glacier ice disappears ? The theory is that the planet’s Northern hemisphere will begin to super heat causing dramatic environmental damage. An analogy between the Earth and a cooler is probably the best one I can offer. If you were to put a thermometer in a mentioned cooler, the temperature reading would probably remain constant for several hours until the ice pack melted. Once the ice pack melts, then the temperature will start rising quickly. The theory is that global temperatures have remained relatively static for the past decades, but the equillibrium will change once the Northern ice vanishes. As you say, perhaps it's best that we begin becoming better custodians of the planet. I couldn't hurt.

I.F.

JF,

You are missing a link. S. Ichtiaque Rasool and Stephen H. Schneider, published in the journal Science in July 1971, titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate. The theory was that greenhouse gases (in the 1979s CFCs was the given culprit) "could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 C. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!" It was not the greenhouse gases themselves but the supposition that these gases attracted a particulate pollution to reside in the atmosphere. It was this particulate pollution that filtered the sunlight and caused global cooling. Ever dust a piece of furniture and have the dust go into a sunbeam where you can see it? Same principle. The particulate in the dust threw shadows. The dust absorbed the sun's heat instead of letting it continue to wherever it was going. Schneider argued against the global cooling theory but he more or less argued the possibility of global warming.

The writers at Time were probably among the ones that really popularized the whole global cooling claims of that era. They did not use the term "greenhouse gases" but kept their terminology more generic: "Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth." (page 2 of this article [time.com]).

Taking false data and using in it in calculations leads to false answers. One must use measured data. The only adjustment to measured data is when one takes into account valid factors measuring the data (i.e., the box with thermometer used to be in a grassy area under a tree, now it is middle of a paved parking lot). Measured data shows the earth is where it was in the 1930s. If one chose a subset of the measurements one can find various periods of 3 & 5 years to support both global warming and global cooling. But such small amounts of data could not be used to predict anything, and have such predictions be credible.

You have done what the global warming extremists have done. They take skewed data and do a "what if" on it. But the "what if" they come up with is unrealistic. We saw that in the 1970s with the dire predictions of another ice age by the year 2000. The fact that it did not happen (real science didn't support the claims) seems to be ignored by those now crying wolf with global warming.

Al Gore did the same thing when he predicted sea levels would rise 20 feet “in the near future.” His movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" wasn't exact but scientists have since indicated the earth would have to warm something like 20 degrees for that to happen. Scientists estimated that an extreme of a 3 degree rise of global temperature over 100 years would cause, at most, a meter rise in sea levels (but most global warming extremists are not suggesting a 3 degree level rise in temperature over the next century). For Al Gore's numbers to be true, for a rise of sea level of 20 feet the temperature would have to rise about 20 degrees C. One can easily see that using false data leads to false predictions. Both should be ignored in favor of measured data. Predictions should be made carefully and be based upon past observations, not faulty models. Further, most of the data points to natural climate change. There still is no evidence that man contributes to climate change (warming or cooling). Most of the evidence points to cyclical change.

Such claims are controversial, and the changes are very likely cyclical. If you had read my earlier posts and followed some of the links you'd see that the evidence suggests that we are possibly in a cooling cycle and the polar ice caps are expanding. In the winter of 2007/2008 the ice caps grew towards the older size and thickened by 10-20 cm. They got even thicker in the winter of 2008/2009 according to news reports (though the measured data is not yet available). There is no data to suggest what will happen in the near and long term, but the overall measured data suggest that we are entering a period of global cooling following one of global warming. This is natural. [You might wish to look at the "Middle Age Warm Up" that was followed by the "Little Ice Age". It occurred before the Industrial Age and man cannot be blamed for it. But those of you crying wolf certainly need to explain it before you can be believed in your crying wolf now.]

John

First, I'm glad to see that you now understand that particulate matter and greenhouse gases have opposing effects on the atmosphere's temperature.

Second, the article you printed is interesting, but it's worth noting that global atmospheric sciences were relatively primitive at the time of this publication and data unreliable, hence why studies of this era often came to erroneous conclusions. The problem of erroneous conclusions did not go unnoticed by the US government. Improving data quality and saving the environment was the reason the EPA was established by the US government at the about the same time (1970) as the study you mentioned. The US government needed better reliable scientific data with which they could establish with more certainty environmental guidelines and policies.

The study you mentioned is almost two generations old. Since that time the EPA has been able to dramatically improve the air quality of Americans by using sound scientific data to generate effective environmental protection policy. Global environmental monitoring has come a long way and these are a few non-disputed facts which have been generated by sophisticated scientific experiments from around the world:

It is estimated that global CO2 levels have increased by 25% since the industrial revolution. HALF of this amount has been produced in the last 30 years alone. Methane gas has been increasing by about 1% since the 1960's and this gas is thought to be from 10 to 30 times more effective in heating the atmosphere than is CO2. Northern Tundra and Artic Sea bed methane gases if 'unfrozen' could equal the largest reserves of the Middle East with dramatic consequenses to the atmosphere. The CFCs mentioned in the study have been greatly studied since the study you mentioned. In addition to destroying the Ozone layer are able to trap up to 10,000 times the amount of heat that a single CO2 molecule can. North Americans have dramatically reduced the use of CFCs (primarily in manufacturing) and learned how to recycle these gases when possible. However, try telling the Chinese and Indians that they can't own a CFC containing refrigerator. They will within one generation equal possibly as much 8 to 10 times the population of the USA. Most scientists believe that it is the rapid industrialization of China and Asia which is directly responsible for the increased greenhouse gases and quick paced environmental changes.

We will just have to agree to disagree that polar and other glacial ice around the world has dramatically receded in the past 30 years. The RATE of glacial loss is what is sounding alarm bells within the global community. The current RATE of loss can't be correlated to any past glacial retreat - it's just far too quick. What use to take hundreds and at times thousands of years to occur is now happening in 20. For this reason most scientists around the world are concerned and desperate to regulate global greenhouse gases while there is still a chance for the planet.

Northern Pole ice cap - dramatic reduction [kara.allthingsd.com]

Greenland ice - dramatic reduction [thewe.cc]

The "inconvenient truth" is that the Republican Party put corporate profits ahead of environmental protection policy. The "inconvenient truth" is that the Republican Party was too slow to embrace the environmental movement which is good for our and future generations.

I.F.

"The RATE of glacial loss is what is sounding alarm bells within the global community. The current RATE of loss can't be correlated to any past glacial retreat - it's just far too quick. "

What is the baseline for this calculation? Accurate measurement of glacial growth and recession dates back only to the middle of the 19th century. You are trying to derive a curve using just one datum, which of course, is the epitome of the junk science you have been peddling here for some time now.

StuartK,

Contrary to what you state, glacial growth and recession can be studied far earlier than the mid 19th century. In fact, geologist and paleonthologists have ample evidence of how not only the last ice age, but also earlier ones and have been able to radically transform the North American topography.

As a military analyst you should be aware that there is a whole science behind glacial ice, particularly how it has shaped our modern day global topography. Given your profession, you should urgently familiarize yourself with Paleoenvironmental and/or Paleogeographical sciences since these can help you better understand and predict the topography of a particular battle area.

I.F.

Not quite. Scientists don’t yet have a provable explanation of the whole thing. The relationship between how greenhouse gases create an environment for the particulate to collect is still not totally understood. There is much work to do there.

If there is a consensus among scientists about anything it is that they still do not know enough to understand natural climate change, and to predict it. Science is still only at the beginning of understanding climate. Predictions of what will happen in the future are nothing more then private guesses.


The point is that the same data and models used then to predict global cooling are now being used to predict global warming! The models that were faulty then are faulty now.

Estimates and predictions mean nothing. Solid scientific fact based upon measurements is what counts. CO2 levels have varied greatly throughout earth’s history. CO2 is natural.

You can disagree with data gathered through scientific measurement all you want. The fact is that in the past 2 years the winters have been cold enough to restore the thickness of the ice caps to where they were in the 1960s. A few more winters like that and the polar and other glacial ice will return fully to older levels. You’ve offered no evidence whatsoever that that there is anything more going on then normal climate change (and very possibly cyclical).

It is interesting how you always introduce politics. Politics does not replace solid science in this discussion. And your assertions are false. Disagreement about how to be good stewards does not mean that one is seeking to harm the environment. Liberals tend to want to punish in order to gain compliance (cap and trade taxes are the latest example). Conservatives tend to want to use carrots (tax breaks to encourage compliance). If you look at the environmental mess in the former Soviet bloc and in China and compare it to the United States you will see that the facts show that capitalist countries have the best environmental records and that socialist / communist countries have the worst. But it seems that you are not interested in anything factual! One cannot begin to consider a response to potential man-caused global warming until one has scientifically proven that man is causing global warming. Solid science does not support man-cause global warming and claiming that all climate-change is cause by man (as many of the extremists do) is just silly.

Since I am not a scientist or a researcher, I have a hard time at coming to conclusions about matters so vast. That is one of the main reasons a red flag raises when I hear "the debate on global warming is over" explicitly or implicitly in an argument.

If certain a priori assumptions are presented as obvious fact, such as man's influence on the world climate, I would like to know why it is so obvious. I just can't take the 8th grade science book at its word.

For my sense of logic, to say that man influences the temperature of the atmosphere to any significant degree is like saying that dust mites in my house insulate my home and force me to pay more for electricity.