Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
JerrySeinfeld

Globe Cooled 0.7C in 2007

Recommended Posts

Is Dion reading this as he prepares to increase the cost of energy ...for what reason?

scientists involved in NASA's Ulysses project reported that the intensity of the sun's solar wind was at its lowest point since the beginning of the space age — one more indication that the sun, the biggest source of energy affecting the Earth, is getting quiet.

The weaker solar wind appears to be due to changes in the sun's magnetic field, but the cause is unknown. Sunspots, which normally fluctuate in 11-year cycles, are at a virtual standstill. In August, the sun created no visible spots. The last time that happened: June 1913.

The results of the Ulysses spacecraft's mission, according to Jet Propulsion Laboratory project scientist Ed Smith, show that "we are in a period of minimal activity that has stretched on longer than anyone anticipated."

The consequences for Earth are enormous. The lack of increased activity could signal the start of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event that occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century. It leads to extended periods of severe cooling such as what happened during the Little Ice Age.

It may already be happening. The four major agencies tracking Earth's temperature, including NASA's Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.

Full Article

Why does the media jump all over a tornado in witchita or hurricane on the gulf coast (wow - what a revelation) as an example of "wild wacky weather" and evidence of global warming, yet they completely ignore a report from NASA clearly showing the planet cooled and hasn't warmed at all in more than 10 years? Just wondering.

I mean, regardless of whether or not you've already drunk Al Gore's kool-aid, shouldn't this at least be the headline on every major network for at least one night? Given the panic we're being fed, why can't this FACT be on my evening news on TV?

Edited by JerrySeinfeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is Dion reading this as he prepares to increase the cost of energy ...for what reason?

Full Article

Why does the media jump all over a tornado in witchita or hurricane on the gulf coast (wow - what a revelation) as an example of "wild wacky weather" and evidence of global warming, yet they completely ignore a report from NASA clearly showing the planet cooled and hasn't warmed at all in more than 10 years? Just wondering.

I mean, regardless of whether or not you've already drunk Al Gore's kool-aid, shouldn't this at least be the headline on every major network for at least one night? Given the panic we're being fed, why can't this FACT be on my evening news on TV?

Once the Arctic and the Antarctica start building ice instead of losing it I will recognize the global cooling as a trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once the Arctic and the Antarctica start building ice instead of losing it I will recognize the global cooling as a trend.

Wow. That pretty much sums up the religion with which some people have embraced a theory - even in the face of hard data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. That pretty much sums up the religion with which some people have embraced a theory - even in the face of hard data.

Conversely, there are those who hold the opposing theory as absolute doctorine, even in the face of hard data. Evidence may show the atmosphere to actually be cooling, but ice caps and glaciers are melting. The whole affair is too complicated to be explained away by a simple "the planet is cooling so the climate is fine" assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow. That pretty much sums up the religion with which some people have embraced a theory - even in the face of hard data.

Oh, yeah, like all that "hard data" showing all the ice melting in the Arctic?

Too bad your source is an avowedly right-wing rag known for having an anti-environment agenda. In other words, it has no credibility when it comes to this issue, so nobody cares what they write.

Edited by kengs333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It may already be happening. The four major agencies tracking Earth's temperature, including NASA's Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.

Weird how that when I went to the Goddard Institute site I found the following:

2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, yeah, like all that "hard data" showing all the ice melting in the Arctic?

Too bad your source is an avowedly right-wing rag known for having an anti-environment agenda. In other words, it has no credibility when it comes to this issue, so nobody cares what they write.

Glaciers have been melting for centuries.

Where do you think Lake Muskoka comes from? Or countless other famous lakes in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glaciers have been melting for centuries.

Where do you think Lake Muskoka comes from? Or countless other famous lakes in the world.

There's a difference between glaciers gradually receding over the course of centuries and the arctic ice cap breaking apart within the course of a year or two.

You trust NASA so much, then I'm sure you'll agree that the satillite images that they provide of the arctic ice disappearing is quite disturbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Conversely, there are those who hold the opposing theory as absolute doctorine, even in the face of hard data. Evidence may show the atmosphere to actually be cooling, but ice caps and glaciers are melting. The whole affair is too complicated to be explained away by a simple "the planet is cooling so the climate is fine" assertion.
First a few facts:

1) Many glaciers are melting but some are expanding. However, the melt started 150 years ago long before human CO2 emissions were any problem (see http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/09/retreating-glac.html).

2) The large east antarctic ice sheet ice is expanding faster than the ice on the antarctic peninsula is melting. (see http://www.physorg.com/news4180.html)

3) The arctic ice has gone through cycles before and there is no reason to believe that this one is particularly unique. The plot of Greenland temperatures over the last 3000 years demonstrates that the current warming is NOT unusual: http://mclean.ch/climate/Eye_opening.htm

Lastly, but most importantly:

4) Even if ice caps are melting that does not mean CO2 is the cause. The only "evidence" linking CO2 to the current warming are computer models which have gotten more things wrong than they have gotten right.

Edited by Riverwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weird how that when I went to the Goddard Institute site I found the following:

2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year

Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century.

I've posted that info too and yet some people seem to still think Goddard said something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Objection: Sure, some glaciers are melting. But if you look at the studies, most of those for which we have data are growing.

Answer: This is simply not true, rumors on "the internets" aside. The National Snow and Ice Data Centre and their State of the Cryosphere division, on their Glacial Balance page, report an overall accelerating rate of glacial mass loss. The World Glacier Monitoring Service has similar findings, the most recent data coming from 2004.

While there surely are some growing glaciers, studies like these are designed to determine a global trend by ensuring glaciers from all regions of the globe are assessed. There are 67,000 glaciers in the World Glacier Inventory. Not all, or even most, have quality data for many decades, but there are enough with adequate data, located in enough regions of the globe, to know the average trend.

Pretty Graph: http://gristmill.grist.org/images/user/693...ass_balance.gif

Don't forget: there is similar evidence from other parts of the cryosphere. It's also worth noting that given the right circumstances, warming can actually cause glacier growth, with accumulation of increased winter snowfall outweighing increased summer melting.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/7/175429/444

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Objection: Sure, some glaciers are melting. But if you look at the studies, most of those for which we have data are growing.
I love these alarmists talking points that always evade the real question.

In this case, the melting started 150 years ago.

Melting ice also tells us nothing about what is causing the warming. Past melts and the fact that the melts started long before CO2 became an issue suggests that natural factors are at work.

That said, I do suspect that humans have exacerbated the melting trend in some case through deforestation and soot pollution, however, the claim that melting glaciers are evidence for a coming CO2 induced catastrophe is extremely dubious.

Edited by Riverwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While Riverwind is doing a great job educating those of you who simply accept global warming as fact, there is too much information that suggests otherwise to regurgitate here in a forum.

I suggest everyone who is interested in this topic go read The Deniers from Lawrence Soloman (a journalist from National Post) http://www.amazon.ca/Deniers-World-Renowne...8639&sr=8-1

I am just reading it now, and he covers all of the points being brought up here.... ice caps, glaciers, temperature trends etc etc... he also covers how statistical mistakes were made and covered up, scientific evidence was ignored that didn't suit certain agencies agendas, etc....

In this book he is not arguing that global warming doesn't exist... and he is also not arguing that we are not the cause if it is happening... he is just pointing out some leading experts who don't agree with the media hyped version and states why they believe what they do. He is saying the science isn't settled... and I agree with him and the other numerous experts (some deny, some don't) that he features in the book.

Riverwind already pointed out some of what is in the book... such as parts of Antarctica are in glacier building stage, that many glaciers have been retreating since the Little Ice age ended 150 to 200 years ago, that hurricanes go through periods of heightened activity (such as now and back in the 1940's), etc etc etc....

This topic is becoming very much like religion... no one knows conclusively one way or another... but a lot of people sure claim to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's a difference between glaciers gradually receding over the course of centuries and the arctic ice cap breaking apart within the course of a year or two.

You trust NASA so much, then I'm sure you'll agree that the satillite images that they provide of the arctic ice disappearing is quite disturbing.

You mean that Arctic ice that has increased 9% over last year?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/16/arti...year/#more-3085

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean that Arctic ice that has increased 9% over last year?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/16/arti...year/#more-3085

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

You might want to take a closer look at that second link a little closer, the one about sea ice... :rolleyes:

"According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season."

The amount is still quite below the average...

also:

http://www.thestar.com/article/492217

Edited by kengs333

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/211834/644

Objection: The Antarctic ice sheets are actually growing, which wouldn't be happening if global warming were real.

Answer: There are two distinct problems with this argument.

First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.

In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little data about the changes in the ice sheets. The growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet indicated by some evidence is so small, and the evidence itself so uncertain, the sheet may well be shrinking.

But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be current. Some recent results from NASA's GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that on the whole, ice mass is being lost.

Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees -- say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C -- would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn't melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.

While on the subject of ice sheets: Greenland is also growing ice in the center, for the same reasons described above. But it is melting on the exterior regions, on the whole losing approximately 200 km3 of ice annually, doubled from just a decade ago. This is a huge amount compared to changes in the Antarctic -- around three orders of magnitude larger. So in terms of sea-level rise, any potential mitigation due to East Antarctic Ice Sheet growth is wiped out many times over by Greenland's melting.

Also: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...ea_ice_min.html

Following a record-breaking season of arctic sea ice decline in 2007, NASA scientists have kept a close watch on the 2008 melt season. Although the melt season did not break the record for ice loss, NASA data are showing that for a four-week period in August 2008, sea ice melted faster during that period than ever before. . .

"I was not expecting that ice cover at the end of summer this year would be as bad as 2007 because winter ice cover was almost normal," said Joey Comiso of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "We saw a lot of cooling in the Arctic that we believe was associated with La Niña. Sea ice in Canada had recovered and even expanded in the Bering Sea and Baffin Bay. Overall, sea ice recovered to almost average levels. That was a good sign that this year might not be as bad as last year."

The 2008 sea ice minimum was second to 2007 for the record-lowest extent of sea ice, according to a joint announcement Sept. 16 by NASA and the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Boulder, Colo. As of Sept. 12, 2008, the ice extent was 1.74 million square miles. That's 0.86 million square miles below the average minimum extent recorded from 1979 to 2000, according to NSIDC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is Dion reading this as he prepares to increase the cost of energy ...for what reason?

All this means is that there is another problem that requires immediate government action and more taxpayers money spent. What do you think, that they can't tax us to combat global warming and then tax us some more to fight global cooling?

Of course that would be irrational but Ottawa [the city without industry] specializes in exactly that. Remember that there would be no GST on "necessities". Salt is a necessity and is not taxed. Peanuts are a necessity and are not taxed. Salted peanuts, of course, are a luxury and are taxed. Strangely, toilet paper is taxed which makes it a luxury. Makes you wonder what they use in Ottawa. Maybe they use the Sears catalogue just like my grandpa used to do until they got the indoor plumbing.

What they are really interested in doing is transferring wealth from the middle-class to the lunatic elite. "Global warming" is just one excuse to do this and if not that it would be something else. Fighting "global cooling" is just as good and with proper propaganda support from the Broadcorping Castration it might even seem reasonable to some people to do both.

Of course you and I are unlikely to accept this and would have to be "re-educated" or something like that.

What is really interesting is trying to figure out what their agenda really is. Dion is not so stupid that he does not understand that "global warming" is a farce. So, knowing this, why does he promote it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You might want to take a closer look at that second link a little closer, the one about sea ice... :rolleyes:

"According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season."

The amount is still quite below the average...

also:

http://www.thestar.com/article/492217

You read both of them again. Ice WAS declining. Now it's increasing. Sea Ice is up 9.4% over last year, and we've seen an increase of 77,000 square kilometers in the last week alone.

Even the degree of melt during the summer was slower.

The neat thing is, even last year's large decline in the summer, was followed by an almost full recovery by mid winter:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Edited by Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You read both of them again. Ice WAS declining. Now it's increasing. Sea Ice is up 9.4% over last year, and we've seen an increase of 77,000 square kilometers in the last week alone.

Even the degree of melt during the summer was slower.

The neat thing is, even last year's large decline in the summer, was followed by an almost full recovery by mid winter:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

Goodness! You're clearly totally incapable of interpreting data.

Click on this link, and go to "Figure 3":

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2007.html

Notice the downward trend over the past 30 years, and the sharp drop in 2007. Notice, too, the nature of the downward trend (up and down, up and down--but on average always resulting in a downward trend). What does this suggest??? A slight increase could occur after a low year, but this does not change the fact that there is a definite trend.

Face it: you are wrong. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, any argument that tries to use a regional phenomenon to disprove a global trend is dead in the water. Anthropogenic global warming theory does not predict uniform warming throughout the globe. We need to assess the balance of the evidence.
I agree. One inconsistency does not mean the catastrophic AGW hypothesis is false and if the growing antarctic ice sheet was the only inconsistency then it would not mean much. However, it is not. We have the slower than expected tropospheric warming, the flat line in ocean heat content, the lack of warming for 10 years. All of which happened while CO2 levels are increasing at rates faster than predicted. These inconsistencies should enough to make any reasonable person question the hypothesis.
In the case of this particular region, there is actually very little data about the changes in the ice sheets. The growth in the East Antarctic ice sheet indicated by some evidence is so small, and the evidence itself so uncertain, the sheet may well be shrinking.
Of course, the appeal to lack of data and uncertainty which conveniently ignores the fact that we really have no reliable climate data from more than 50 years ago. We really don't know if the current warming is unprecedented nor do we have any idea whether the current ice melts are unprecedented. That is why it is not reasonable to claim that melting ice is "evidence" for catastrophic AGW.
But even this weak piece of evidence may no longer be current. Some recent results from NASA's GRACE experiment, measuring the gravitational pull of the massive Antarctic ice sheets, have indicated that on the whole, ice mass is being lost.
Decreasing by a tiny amount even if one assumes the that GRACE experiment provides the more reliable data.
Second, ice-sheet thickening is not inconsistent with warming! Warmer climates tend toward more precipitation. The Antarctic is one of the most extreme deserts on the planet. As it warms, we would expect it to receive more snow. But even a whopping warming of 20 degrees -- say, from -50 degrees C to -30 degrees C -- would still leave it below freezing, so the snow wouldn't melt. Thus, an increase in ice mass.
Of course we are told that rising sea levels is one of the reasons why we have to panic about global warming. If global warming actually causes ice to thicken then risings seas are not much of a concern. It is also worth noting that the calculations of the amount of ice being lost are not real measurements - the are estimates based on computer models which means they could be completely wrong.
Following a record-breaking season of arctic sea ice decline in 2007, NASA scientists have kept a close watch on the 2008 melt season. Although the melt season did not break the record for ice loss, NASA data are showing that for a four-week period in August 2008, sea ice melted faster during that period than ever before. . .
A rediculous statement because we don't have any reliable data prior to 1950 so we don't know if the melt has happened before.

That said, these kinds of discussions are generally not useful because they mix up too many questions which need to be answered seperately. For example, we know that CO2 is a GHG and does cause the planet to warm. We also know that the majority of the extra CO2 is coming from humans. However, we don't know how much of the past warming is due to CO2 and how much warming is likely to occur in the future. And even we agree that there will be enough warming to be worried we don't know whether mitigation is actually more cost effective than adaptation.

In fact, the last question is really an economic question and I don't really have much confidence in economic predictions a year from now - nevermind a century from now. So I don't see how we can justify economically damaging cuts to CO2 based on these dubious economic projections. Especially when the real data suggests that warming is proceding a slower rate than predicted.

Edited by Riverwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You read both of them again. Ice WAS declining. Now it's increasing. Sea Ice is up 9.4% over last year, and we've seen an increase of 77,000 square kilometers in the last week alone.
Unfortunately you are wrong on this one. Even with the slight increase the downward trend is accelerating. That is the way the mathematics of trends work. A reversal would require a few years of increasing ice. It might happen, it might not. We have to wait and see. Edited by Riverwind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately you are wrong on this one. Even with the slight increase the downward trend is accelerating. That is the way the mathematics of trends work. A reversal would require a few years of increasing ice. It might happen, it might not. We have to wait and see.

I never said it was an extended trend. I said the ice has increased 9.4% over this time last year. And it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said it was an extended trend. I said the ice has increased 9.4% over this time last year. And it has.

"You read both of them again. Ice WAS declining. Now it's increasing. Sea Ice is up 9.4% over last year, and we've seen an increase of 77,000 square kilometers in the last week alone."

This suggests that you were trying to show that the general trend was reversing. If you didn't think that it was an extended trend, then it was completely pointless to mention this slight one year increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"You read both of them again. Ice WAS declining. Now it's increasing. Sea Ice is up 9.4% over last year, and we've seen an increase of 77,000 square kilometers in the last week alone."

This suggests that you were trying to show that the general trend was reversing. If you didn't think that it was an extended trend, then it was completely pointless to mention this slight one year increase.

Sure there was a point. You are being excessively alarmist without rational reasoning. You claimed the ice was receding and breaking up at an alarming rate. Currently, not only is it not receding, it's actually increasing. Not only that, even after last year's record thaw, it all came back quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...