Controversial new climate change results

[tjohn]

Originally Posted by andyh

What consequences on what kind of timescale do you expect here? And where is your evidence for this prophecy of doom?
Do you expect that eating veg and taxes will solve it given your answers to the other questions above?

I expect that if we cut down on emissions it wouldn't be accelerating as fast and it wouldn't go as high as it would by the natural cycle without us adding to it. Make sense?

It seems obvious to me but as I previously said,

Originally Posted by tjohn

Unfortunately some cannot or refuse to see this, so it becomes what is know as a false dilemma or dichotomy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichotomy

[tjohn]

Originally Posted by jiffy

Whilst I am no adverse to Trees, a tree is carbon neutral not a carbon scrum. More propaganda dreamed up by the likes of Gore.

Rich land owners get paid copious amounts of cash to plant trees to offset Carbon trading credits.

yes the whole shebang is win win for the wealthy

I'm not trying to argue for the sake of it but what you said about trees being carbon neutral isn't right. Green plants use carbon to make carbohydrates through photosynthesis. If they didn't they wouldn't grow.

http://www.carbs-information.com/syn...bohydrates.htm

Carbohydrates (comprising carbon and water) are sugar compounds which are manufactured or "synthesized" by green plants (and other organisms) when exposed to light. This carbohydrate manufacturing process is called photosynthesis after the Latin words "photo" meaning light and "synthesis" meaning putting together.

[tjohn]

Originally Posted by andyh

You could take things a step further and state that the greatest greenhouse gas of all is water vapour

It's funny that you quote wikipedia there, yet the same source actually states that methane is NOT as great a greenhouse gas as CO2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

* water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
* carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
* methane, which contributes 4–9%
* ozone, which contributes 3–7%

Cleaner burning cars by the way release more water vapour...oh dear

In regard to cleaner burning cars releasing more water vapour I would think that we get a very tiny bit more rain. Hey Andy, when I answered your post before I didn't answer you right, sorry about that. Because of what you said (and did not say) and because I didn't bother to read it myself, I assumed that

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

was biased against the idea that humans are contributing to global warming.

Oh and you forgot to mention that the Wikipedia article says:

Human activities since the start of the industrial era around 1750 have increased the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

[andyh]

Originally Posted by tjohn

I expect that if we cut down on emissions it wouldn't be accelerating as fast and it wouldn't go as high as it would by the natural cycle without us adding to it. Make sense?

It seems obvious to me but as I previously said,

It makes sense that it might perhaps reduce the damage but the question is what damage is there, what actually caused it was CO2 increase perhaps as a result of temp increase as per the current model clearly shows in the past?

Most important of all though, how do you expect taxation to solve this so called "problem" and is there not something more important for politicians to be doing right now?

Also when exactly do you expect there to be large sea level rises or catastrophic weather?

This last question has never been answered properly, the IPCC have downward revised their temperature projections again and again, they expect around 0.4C in 100 years.

If you live in parts of Holland then there may be something to worry about but that has always been the case, we made it possible to live there by artificial means, just as we have built in areas that are prone to bad weather anyway often with wooden housing.

Would perhaps a warmer world actually be a benefit!?

There's too much pseudoscience going on here for my liking, we have so far had tree ring data proven to be false
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/

We have had the BBC admit there has been no warming for the past 11 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

And we have watched as politicians jumped onto this whole issue and made a farce out of it.

Then we have over 30,000 scientists including some very reputable phd's and ex IPCC members refute AGW
http://www.petitionproject.org/

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_im...Letter_100.png

[jiffy]

I have no intention of quoting all that is wrong in what you have written, suffice to say that it is amazing how one person can cherry pick so much information.

Tree's are pretty much carbon neutral, the amount of extra carbon they use to grow is more or less off set by the amount they excel.

I love the comment about when I was a lad, if I had a penny for everytime I heard that one

I take it you are aware that 1872 was the coldest year for 10,000 years? hence why the graph that NASA so "conveniently" produced starts in 1880

So today's temperatures are being compared to the coldest the planet has been for 10,000 year, hence why when you were a lad there was snow every year, we are coming out of a mini ice age!!!!

How about we go back a little longer when temperatures were 1.5 degrees warmer
Or the ice age.
Or when the planet froze then thawed 7 times in 7 thousand years, meaning you had to have changes in temperatures of 1.7 degrees in one persons life span!!

The link that was provided "PROVING" the tree ring cores was a scam, means nothing to you? If the evidence is SO overwhelming then why cook the figures.

You will be well aware of "Manns Hockey stick", which is again a load of nonsense. The data used is now "PROVEN" to be all wrong. SO WHERE IS THE REBUTTAL!!!
Here is a another question did you ever look at that hockey stick and not ask the question, where is the medieval warming period, where is the mini ice age of 18 century?


You still have not address the TWO MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.

Why if the planet is warming GLOBALLY is the atmosphere temperature not changing?

How can a greenhouse gas reflect heat back to the planet yet not reflect heat away form the planet (ie the sun)

I take it you are also aware that Antarctica has the most amount of snow ever recorded? explain that please if it is "GLOBAL WARMING" (as a side note, it is estimated that the Antarctic holds 95% of all the worlds ice.)

Then there is the Bullshit! "Global" Sea level rising, yet more lies. I had to laugh at the Maldives president giving a cabinet meeting under the water to high light the dangers of global warming effecting sea levels. When the Maldives has seen a drop in sea levels by some 35 centimetres.

Without trying to sound patronizing you fail to see the full picture, the fact you can't see that climate models are now complete debunked due to poor data entry means nothing to you.

I can't for the life of me understand how you can't see this is a scam. Why are these Pseudo-scientist using data that they know is wrong and selective?
There is an expression in IT programming put shit in, get shit out!

I find it amazing how Cognitive the religion of Global warming is. The environmental movement has been hijacked.

Big business must be laughing their asses off at how stupid "average Joe" is. They can now continue to poison water ways all over the world, throw people off the indigenous lands to grow the west out of season Fruit.

Sell third world farmers GMO seeds that fail, then blame it on Global warming, while taking their underground water supplies to make Coke!!

The single biggest threat to the world is the IMF and the World Bank.

and Pseudoscience!!!!!

[jiffy]

As you seem to like quotes here are some:

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”
- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming.” - Scientist Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former Greenpeace member.

“Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.” - Solar physicist Dr. Pal Brekke, senior advisor to the Norwegian Space Centre in Oslo. Brekke has published more than 40 peer-reviewed scientific articles on the sun and solar interaction with the Earth.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S GovernmentAtmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact,as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs,who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“The Kyoto theorists have put the cart before the horse. It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round…A large number of critical documents submitted at the 1995 U.N. conference in Madrid vanished without a trace. As a result, the discussion was one-sided and heavily biased, and the
U.N. declared global warming to be a scientific fact,” Andrei Kapitsa, a Russian geographer and Antarctic ice core researcher.

“I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken...Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.” - Award Winning Physicist Dr. Will Happer, Professor at the Department of Physics at Princeton University and Former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy, who has published over 200 scientific papers, and is a fellow of the American
Physical Society, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences.

“Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions.” – Prominent Hungarian Physicist and environmental researcher Dr. Miklós Zágoni reversed his view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic. Zágoni was once Hungary’s most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil... I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” - South Afican Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed
publications.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“All those urging action to curb global warming need to take off the blinkers and give some thought to what we should do if we are facing global cooling instead.” -Geophysicist Dr. Phil Chapman, an astronautical engineer and former NASA astronaut, served as staff physicist at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)


I have lots more about 600 Just google some of these people and read there papers......then come back to me

[jiffy]

Originally Posted by andyh

Most important of all though, how do you expect taxation to solve this so called "problem"

Bang on the money

Carbon Trading now their is a scam, head up by the Pope of the religion..... Al Gore.

The man that promoted unprecedented growth under Clinton, then saw the light and had the calling, not from the Environment movement, but from the stupidity of people to make him a Carbon Billionaire

[tjohn]

Originally Posted by jiffy

I have no intention of quoting all that is wrong in what you have written, suffice to say that it is amazing how one person can cherry pick so much information.

Tree's are pretty much carbon neutral, the amount of extra carbon they use to grow is more or less off set by the amount they excel.

If I had a penny for every time I heard that one. So where did you cherry pick that information from? How many tones of trees are there on the earth and how do they grow?

Look up photosynthesis it's elementary school knowledge and a scientific fact and photosynthesis uses CO2 from the atmosphere.

Then what becomes of a tree when it is burnt? CO2 and when there's not enough oxygen for the fire CO (carbon monoxide) as well and guess what? We also get charcoal = (mainly) carbon.

And guess what, trees and other vegetation after being buried for thousands of years under pressure, turn into coal which contains carbon (that's why coal is black!) as well as hydrocarbons (oils and so on) instead of the carbohydrates which was the case with the live plant.

Yet you say that trees are more or less carbon neutral. and I say you cherry pick your knowledge because you do not know the very basics of science.

I love the comment about when I was a lad, if I had a penny for every time I heard that one.

I take it you are aware that 1872 was the coldest year for 10,000 years? hence why the graph that NASA so "conveniently" produced starts in 1880

So in 1872 was an ice age more than the span of 10,000 years ago? Who are you trying to kid?

So today's temperatures are being compared to the coldest the planet has been for 10,000 year, hence why when you were a lad there was snow every year, we are coming out of a mini ice age!!!!

How about we go back a little longer when temperatures were 1.5 degrees warmer(?)
Or the ice age.
Or when the planet froze then thawed 7 times in 7 thousand years, meaning you had to have changes in temperatures of 1.7 degrees in one persons life span!!

So now we have a thousand year cycle - first I heard of it.

The link that was provided "PROVING" the tree ring cores was a scam, means nothing to you? If the evidence is SO overwhelming then why cook the figures.

Why indeed cook the figures?

You will be well aware of "Manns Hockey stick", which is again a load of nonsense. The data used is now "PROVEN" to be all wrong. SO WHERE IS THE REBUTTAL!!!

Sorry but I have not heard of "Manns Hockey stick".

Here is a another question did you ever look at that hockey stick and not ask the question, where is the medieval warming period, where is the mini ice age of 18[th] century?

You tell me!

Or when the planet froze then thawed 7 times in 7 thousand years..

Good question. Yet, so what?

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/...e_ice_age.html

You still have not address the TWO MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS.

Why if the planet is warming GLOBALLY is the atmosphere temperature not changing?

It is. It changes every year, sometimes it goes up and sometimes it goes down but what is the over all average?

How can a greenhouse gas reflect heat back to the planet yet not reflect heat away from the planet (ie the sun)

It does both. Suppose you were covered in white clothing, you would be cooler in summer when the sun shine more and warmer at night and in winter.

I take it you are also aware that Antarctica has the most amount of snow ever recorded?

Not aware of that but anyway what about the Arctic?

...explain that please if it is "GLOBAL WARMING" (as a side note, it is estimated that the Antarctic holds 95% of all the worlds ice.)

I am led to believe that the ice at one pole is on land and the other isn't.

Then there is the Bullshit! "Global" Sea level rising, yet more lies.

Put an ice cube in water and watch it melt and the overall effect is that the level remains the same. However if ice melts off land the sea level does rise.

I had to laugh at the Maldives president giving a cabinet meeting under the water to highlight the dangers of global warming effecting sea levels. When the Maldives has seen a drop in sea levels by some 35 centimetres.

Over how many years? A mere ten or eleven perhaps?

Without trying to sound patronizing you fail to see the full picture, the fact you can't see that climate models are now complete debunked due to poor data entry means nothing to you.

I can't for the life of me understand how you can't see this is a scam. Why are these Pseudo-scientist using data that they know is wrong and selective?
There is an expression in IT programming put shit in, get shit out!

Shit in, shit out. Yep! So who is telling the shit?

I find it amazing how Cognitive the religion of Global warming is. The environmental movement has been hijacked.

... Big business must be laughing their asses off at how stupid "average Joe" is.

No, then tell me, how do big businesses such as car manufactures and greedy oil companies, make much profit from the idea of Global Warming?

[andyh]

Originally Posted by tjohn

No, then tell me, how do big businesses such as car manufactures and greedy oil companies, make much profit from the idea of Global Warming?

You're about to find out lol.

Btw, here's a graph showing info we have logged for a much longer time period.
You'll notice huge variation-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Variations.png

What we're undergoing at the moment is nothing spectacular as far as the planet is concerned.
It's a given that pollution is a problem, but CO2 is a small part of it as far as both myself and 30,000 scientists are concerned.
The issue has become politicised, politicians no longer pay any attention to scientists whatsoever unless what they peddle feeds their agenda.
The IPCC stands for International Political Climate Crap

[jiffy]

Originally Posted by tjohn

If I had a penny for every time I heard that one. So where did you cherry pick that information from? How many tones of trees are there on the earth and how do they grow?

Look up photosynthesis it's elementary school knowledge and a scientific fact and photosynthesis uses CO2 from the atmosphere.

Then what becomes of a tree when it is burnt? CO2 and when there's not enough oxygen for the fire CO (carbon monoxide) as well and guess what? We also get charcoal = (mainly) carbon.

And guess what, trees and other vegetation after being buried for thousands of years under pressure, turn into coal which contains carbon (that's why coal is black!) as well as hydrocarbons (oils and so on) instead of the carbohydrates which was the case with the live plant.

Yet you say that trees are more or less carbon neutral. and I say you cherry pick your knowledge because you do not know the very basics of science.

So in 1872 was an ice age more than the span of 10,000 years ago? Who are you trying to kid?

So now we have a thousand year cycle - first I heard of it.

Why indeed cook the figures?

Sorry but I have not heard of "Manns Hockey stick".

You tell me! Good question. Yet, so what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/...e_ice_age.html
It is. It changes every year, sometimes it goes up and sometimes it goes down but what is the over all average?
It does both. Suppose you were covered in white clothing, you would be cooler in summer when the sun shine more and warmer at night and in winter.

Not aware of that but anyway what about the Arctic?
I am led to believe that the ice at one pole is on land and the other isn't.

Put an ice cube in water and watch it melt and the overall effect is that the level remains the same. However if ice melts off land the sea level does rise.

Over how many years? A mere ten or eleven perhaps?

Shit in, shit out. Yep! So who is telling the shit?

No, then tell me, how do big businesses such as car manufactures and greedy oil companies, make much profit from the idea of Global Warming?

You have no need to patronize me with remedial science, doesn't give your opinions any more credibility

Shame you have not researched the Carbon cycle of tree's.

Yes I could find you a million links to the wonders of planting trees, but alas I read scientific papers NOT propaganda.

There have been many studies questioning the amount of Co2 rain forest release back into the atmosphere. Funny enough they release more the warmer the climate, thus off setting any benefit of capture.

Also missed the part when a tree dies, which then releases Co2 via bacteria and other organisms.

Clearly the argument is lost, I use scientific papers you use Wiki. When you can answer the two main question with a cohesive reply I will listen.

The atmosphere has seen any notable change in temperature FACT

Originally Posted by jiffy

“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.”
- Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

The analogy of white clothing is a classic, you couldn't of made a better case for my argument if you tried.

White clothing repeals the heat from the source..ie the Sun......thus making you cooler...yes?

So using YOUR analogy green house gases will repeal heat from the source...ie the sun......thus making you (the earth) cooler.

I rest my case

[jiffy]

Tjohn if you are serious about finding the truth for your self

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sou...jMn6yaz8nXLhgg

This link is to a US Minority Report on Global climate change, from this report you will be able to access scientist peer reviewed papers that may help you on your way to being a skeptic.

kind regards on your journey

[tjohn]

Originally Posted by andyh

You're about to find out lol.

Btw, here's a graph showing info we have logged for a much longer time period.
You'll notice huge variation-
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Variations.pngWhat we're undergoing at the moment is nothing spectacular as far as the planet is concerned.
It's a given that pollution is a problem, but CO2 is a small part of it as far as both myself and 30,000 scientists are concerned.

A small part is still a part. Then it is not 30,000 'scientists' with a PHD but something in the order of 9,000 and I never heard of a scientist (in the accepted sense of that word) without at least a PHD. However, 9,000 is an impressive number and I am looking at this issue again.

The issue has become politicised, politicians no longer pay any attention to scientists whatsoever unless what they peddle feeds their agenda.
The IPCC stands for International Political Climate Crap

The issue has become 'politicised' on both sides but without such an agenda I conclude that:

If we are to believe the charts, when looking at the picture over several thousands of years, the average trend is that of global cooling. However since the industrial revolution there is global warming, as is clearly seen from the charts.

Because of human activity, technically global warming exists in our present era and the question is do we want this, seeing as it upsets the present natural balance - the exact value of which we do not know.

Put an ice cube in a glass of water and contrary to many expectations when the ice has melted the water level does not go up. This is because ice displaces the water and ice has air absorbed in it, so when it melts the water level does not noticeably increase. So ice melting at the North pole which does not have land underneath, has little difference to sea level but at the same time it does effect warm sea currents as fresh water mixes with salty water. For example, the UK would become colder once the threshold of diluting salt water has been reached to a point where it would stop the warm salty sea current called the Gulf Stream.

On the other hand, because the ice at the South pole is on land, ice melting at the South pole adds to sea levels and if nothing is done, it would flood parts of the world such as parts of Pakistan and other sea level (or lower) lands.

Since the industrial age, CO2, Methane and other 'greenhouse' gasses are accelerating the present upward climb, whereas over several thousand years (at least according to some data), the average has been going down. Exactly how much we in the present age, are contributing to global (present day average) warming I don't know and nor does anyone else but the point is that we are living in the present age, where people are living in places that are likely to flood if we simply carry on as we are doing. What's more, even though the average world-wide temperature would be such and such, once a threshold has been reached places like the UK would actually become colder, through the mixing of fresh water with salt water, by diluting the warm salty water conveyor belt and thus making it stop.
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/545.html

Regardless of the data that go back seven or eight thousand years, we live in the present age, so because of humanity's contribution (which is an unknown value) do we want our present climate to change? We live in the present age, so do we want to see land flooded and millions of people made homeless? Also, do we want the gulf stream to fail, which would cause problems for the UK and Europe?

Note that an 'unknown value' is not the same as nothing, so do we want to risk affecting future people because of any 'political' agenda? I say that we should do the least we can to effect the climate.

John

[jiffy]

Yet more dodgy figures, makes me laugh that climate models are based on this nonsense

As some of our readers have already noticed, there was a significant problem with the daily sea ice data images on February 16. The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products. Upon further investigation, we discovered that starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html

measuring the ice with an old tape measure and assuring Prince Charles by satellite telephone that it is "thinner than expected".
When the trio heard a passing aircraft, which they hoped was bringing much-needed supplies, they little realised it was a DC-3 carrying an international team of scientists, using the latest electro-magnetic induction equipment to discover rather more efficiently that the ice was in fact "twice as thick" as they had expected.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...-warmists.html


Antarctic Sea Ice for March

Extent Concentration
2009 5.0 million sq km 2.9 million sq km
1997 3.8 million sq km 2.2 million sq km
1980 3.5 million sq km 2.0 million sq km

This is an increase of 45% for ice concentration since 1980. This continues a long trend that has been noted here for several months..

Interior ice is also increasing but not due to warming as the models have predicted. According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1°F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004. All the while global CO2 levels have gone up and the main stream media has been reporting near catastrophic warming conditions. They regularly show Antarctic sea ice shelves breaking apart, which is an entirely normal process (though they never tell you that part). The main stream media and certain segments of the scientific community truly must have no shame.

If you have doubts about the increase in ice you can run the numbers yourself at the National Snow and Ice Data Center's website (part of the University of Colorado and funded by the National Science Foundation).

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/com...ent.news.109.3

[jiffy]

* In the mid 1960s, ITT built a power transmission line in Antarctica. The transmission towers stood 115 feet tall.

* As you can see in these photos, all but the top 30 feet of the towers are now buried in ice






Photo, taken in the late 1980s, show that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing thicker.

[andyh]

Originally Posted by tjohn

A small part is still a part. Then it is not 30,000 'scientists' with a PHD but something in the order of 9,000 and I never heard of a scientist (in the accepted sense of that word) without at least a PHD. However, 9,000 is an impressive number and I am looking at this issue again.

The issue has become 'politicised' on both sides but without such an agenda I conclude that:

If we are to believe the charts, when looking at the picture over several thousands of years, the average trend is that of global cooling. However since the industrial revolution there is global warming, as is clearly seen from the charts.

Because of human activity, technically global warming exists in our present era and the question is do we want this, seeing as it upsets the present natural balance - the exact value of which we do not know.

Put an ice cube in a glass of water and contrary to many expectations when the ice has melted the water level does not go up. This is because ice displaces the water and ice has air absorbed in it, so when it melts the water level does not noticeably increase. So ice melting at the North pole which does not have land underneath, has little difference to sea level but at the same time it does effect warm sea currents as fresh water mixes with salty water. For example, the UK would become colder once the threshold of diluting salt water has been reached to a point where it would stop the warm salty sea current called the Gulf Stream.

On the other hand, because the ice at the South pole is on land, ice melting at the South pole adds to sea levels and if nothing is done, it would flood parts of the world such as parts of Pakistan and other sea level (or lower) lands.

Since the industrial age, CO2, Methane and other 'greenhouse' gasses are accelerating the present upward climb, whereas over several thousand years (at least according to some data), the average has been going down. Exactly how much we in the present age, are contributing to global (present day average) warming I don't know and nor does anyone else but the point is that we are living in the present age, where people are living in places that are likely to flood if we simply carry on as we are doing. What's more, even though the average world-wide temperature would be such and such, once a threshold has been reached places like the UK would actually become colder, through the mixing of fresh water with salt water, by diluting the warm salty water conveyor belt and thus making it stop.
http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/545.html

Regardless of the data that go back seven or eight thousand years, we live in the present age, so because of humanity's contribution (which is an unknown value) do we want our present climate to change? We live in the present age, so do we want to see land flooded and millions of people made homeless? Also, do we want the gulf stream to fail, which would cause problems for the UK and Europe?

Note that an 'unknown value' is not the same as nothing, so do we want to risk affecting future people because of any 'political' agenda? I say that we should do the least we can to effect the climate.

John

I've heard about the possible reduction of salinity causing the gulfstream to fail, certainly there has been some considerable melt in Greenland which is land ice.

I would agree with that post pretty much 100% except for the "least we can to affect the climate" part.
I'm almost convinced that we will have an effect of some sort regardless of what we do currently and we seem to have such limited knowledge which is hampered further by politicians who seem to back the most outlandish ideas eg ethanol/hydrogen.

There's already been some examples of weather modifcation going on (granted locally limited) with cloud seeding. I find it rather reckless (polluting) and the results are often not quite what they expected.

I would love to see a reduction in oil usage, there are obviously many alternate technologies available to use now, but green incentives and taxation are not a good idea imo.
I'd rather see people do it of their own free will because it makes sense to do so and can be profitable if govt allowed the right circumstances to come about through non intervention.

[rodin]

Originally Posted by jiffy

* In the mid 1960s, ITT built a power transmission line in Antarctica. The transmission towers stood 115 feet tall.

Photo, taken in the late 1980s, show that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing thicker.

We agree on this @ least

What a crock climate change is. The real danger is FOOD change being enforced. That and Codex Alimentarus

[tjohn]

Originally Posted by jiffy

* In the mid 1960s, ITT built a power transmission line in Antarctica. The transmission towers stood 115 feet tall.

* As you can see in these photos, all but the top 30 feet of the towers are now buried in ice






Photo, taken in the late 1980s, show that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing thicker.

Psst... a little confusing with the second photo (I cannot help but notice that the tower in the second photo is not of the same sort as the towers in the first).

Taking a look at the first photo and taking that there is now less of the towers showing than when they were built (they look more than 30 feet tall unless they are unusually thick towers), one of two things could have happened:
1) There has been much more snow/ice deposited since they were originally built or, 2) they have simply sunk down into the ice.

When an iceberg comes floating in the nearest sea to where you live, let us know which you think it is.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showp...80&postcount=2 < your post.

[tjohn]

Originally Posted by andyh

I've heard about the possible reduction of salinity causing the gulfstream to fail, certainly there has been some considerable melt in Greenland which is land ice.

I would agree with that post pretty much 100% except for the "least we can to affect the climate" part.
I'm almost convinced that we will have an effect of some sort regardless of what we do currently and we seem to have such limited knowledge which is hampered further by politicians who seem to back the most outlandish ideas eg ethanol/hydrogen.

There's already been some examples of weather modifcation going on (granted locally limited) with cloud seeding. I find it rather reckless (polluting) and the results are often not quite what they expected.

I would love to see a reduction in oil usage, there are obviously many alternate technologies available to use now, but green incentives and taxation are not a good idea imo.

Why in your opinion are more Green alternatives to using oil so outlandish? Do we need to use as much fossil fuel(s) as we do at present? Or is the real issue about being taxed? If you can install solar panels and/or wind turbines (or perhaps other sources of energy) then rather than being taxed, your bill for the initial outlay would likely be subsidised after which you get some energy for practically nothing.

I'd rather see people do it of their own free will because it makes sense to do so and can be profitable if govt allowed the right circumstances to come about through non intervention.

Same here!

[tjohn]

Do we, should we, support the oil companies?

[smoke n mirrors]

Originally Posted by tjohn

Why in your opinion are more Green alternatives to using oil so outlandish? Do we need to use as much fossil fuel(s) as we do at present? Or is the real issue about being taxed? If you can install solar panels and/or wind turbines (or perhaps other sources of energy) then rather than being taxed, your bill for the initial outlay would likely be subsidised after which you get energy for practically nothing.

Same here!

The vast majority of people, who understand that the whole business of humans being the driving force, behind global warming is a sham - based on biased and corrupted science, serving an entirely different agenda. They also understand the meaning of conserving and preserving resources. These things are two entirely different debates.

Subsidised by who? If we receive a subsidy from the government that means we are taking back our own money, less the expenses of the various administrative systems.

Wouldn't it be better to reign in the governments, end their corruption and pandering to corporate entities? If taxes were realistic and people had enough spare cash, to maintain a healthier more sustainable life style, maybe things would be different. The fact of the matter is that, most people can't make the choices they would like to make, because they don't have the means. Most issues of poverty are born out of poor government and corporate polices. Did factory works volunteer to lose their jobs to overseas companies? Who instigated the policies of out sourcing call center workers etc. - the people who would be left unemployed or greedy bankers, utility companies and other corporations? The legacy of these policies is only just beginning to unfold. How is an increased system of taxation going to encourage people to be green? It will only serve to increase the divide and shift the balance of wealth further in favor of the rich. Rich people can afford new greener cars and alternative sources of energy...while sneering at people less fortunate.

Even though the flawed science you continue to cling to is falling apart, and physical evidence to the contrary mounts, you maintain your blinkered views. Thank goodness, people that used to share your mindset are beginning to reject the BS, spouted by government funded scientific prostitutes.

.