A new look on global warming

Remove all ads!

heres a good one
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...arctic-sea-ice-traps-climate-tour-icebreaker/
apparently a tour operator that listens to the GW believers thought it would be a good idea to book tours through the passage that they said was ice free for the first time ever & even after the refreeze of the winter was a viable northwest passage. guess what? it wasn't.

 

And right on cue, Martaug provides another example of blatant intellectual dishonesty. The European Space Agency said, back in Fall '07, that photos showed "an ice free passage along northern Canada, Alaska, and Greenland". Well, yes. But they also made it pretty clear that it wasn't exactly easily navigable. Which, y'know, is also exactly what the globe and mail article said (actually, the article notes that the trip started in Russia and that they got stuck before reaching Canadian waters. It doesn't give an exact location, unfortunately).

In other words, it's a non-story.

 

so Amaster just exactly how does a 12,288 ton icebreaker get stuck in an "ice-free" passage?

And we have this: http://www.isn.ethz.ch/news/sw/details.cfm?id=19026
&
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3214

now i now the GW believers will naysay all of them but it still puts paid to the "it's settled" BS

 

By travelling at a different time of year when the ice isn't as thin?
By the ice shifting to close the particular route this ship happened to take?

This is the FIRST time the route has become Ice Free, it certainly doesn't mean it will be ice free for long enough to get a ship through!


Oh, and from the Hadley site as claimed in the ISN link, yes we have a bit of cooling in 2007/2008 - linked to a known and measured weather pattern, la Nina, and certainly NOT an indication that Global Warming is a myth.

Is it La Nine that means increased huricanes, or is that another one?

 

i think el nino being the warming phase of the 2 it probably is the one that encourages the growth of stronger hurricanes.

as far as man caused GW:
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=130

"Richard Mackey wrote this paper( http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf ) about Rhodes Fairbridge and the Idea that the Solar System Regulates the Earth's Climate in 2007. It likewise projects quieter cyles 24 will be quieter than 23 and that 25 and 26 will be very quiet and result in colder decades ahead.



A similar finding was made by Archibald who speculates a major cooling ahead that could rival or be worse than the Dalton Minimum. In the hyperlinked paper, he even projects the impact on some US locations based on historical trendlines. Such a cooling would of course further call into question the idea that greenhouse gases are behind all the changes in our climate and natural factors are now suddenly unimportant. In our recent stories, we have shown how important ENSO and the multidecadal cycles in the oceans are to temperatures. It is my belief that someday we will find proof that solar changes drive the ocean cycles which drive the land temperatures.



SUMMARY



The sun undergoes cyclical changes on multiple time scales that appear to correlate very well with temperatures. Long and relatively quiet solar cycles historically have been associated with cold global temperatures, short and very active cycles, warm periods. The current cycle 23 appears to be the longest in at least a century and may project to quieter subsequent cycles and cooling temperatures ahead.

 

Looks like the national security establishment is taking climate change seriously. Fun.

 

Wee! gotta love thread resurrection.

The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.

 

Hm, can't tell if this point has been made here before, but I find it interesting how it seems to be especially geologists who dissent with the man-made global warming hypothesis...

ON that article there was a lot about Steve Fielding...this is what his party's apparently been up to:

from here

...and about Pliner's book Heaven and Earth...

 

Indeed! There must be a conspiracy of extreme environmentalists who go and melt the mountain glaciers with hairdryers and salt!

Here's an article concerning Plimer's book...

 

I think one of the simpilist bits of evidence that "global warming" was a hoax is that the term isn't used anymore. Now everyone uses "global climate change".

To make matters worse it looks like the U.S. Congress and Obama are about to pass the Cap and Trade bill based on this faulty science. I hope our economy survives.

 

That and he's not afraid to make the people pay through the nose to forward an agenda....

 

Meh, global warming critics aren't that new, though the sudden popularity for them in Australia might be. Didn't you mention such an article a few months back, martaug? Even if the temperature hasn't noticably changed in the past 8 years, it doesn't mean it isn't changing. It's like saying evolution is nonsense, because you can't see it happening right now with your own two eyes.

I saw a programme about the melting ice caps last night on Discovery, and the things they said there are far from speculative. It was about how light gets reflected off the ice caps (ice has an albedo of 80%), whereas water reflects only 20%, retaining 80% of sunlight's heat energy. The polar ice caps have definitely melted: It used to be the size of the USA in 1980 iirc, but now 'all the eastern states are gone', so to speak.
It's also going to happen a lot faster later on, due to this effect of heat retention by the ocean. What is a barely noticeable change over years at the moment, will cascade into dramatic sealevel rise and very noticeable temperature change.

It would be nice to think that climate change is just a hoax, or a half-truth exaggerated by partial people ('kill the evil terrorist!'). But I'm afraid that it's very real. We do live on a fragile planet, and our actions do influence our environment.

 

Do you want to know why so many geologists are up in arms against man-made climate change in it's modern representation? The Medival Warming Period and the Little Ice Age are both well established in the geological record. More drastic climate changes than even the most extreme climatologists claim happened just a few hundred years ago. There were no mass-extinctions, no vast changes in sea level, and the human race survived pretty darn well. What's more, it was all caused by inhuman factors (still yet to be identified)!

 

@NOG: Well, that would do it, but it hardly gives any direction as to what we as human race should or should not do....or as the causes of the events of that time period are as of yet unknown, it does not say much about what is happening now either...

 

You ignore how the process is supposed to work. When the ice-caps start to melt, this lowers the earths temperature in much the same way that my tea is coldest right after the ice melts, meaning that global warming won't occur as a straight line on a graph. The reason that the term Global Warming has gone out of vogue in the US is primarilly due to the concerted effort of the American Right to only use the term "Climate Change" (since it sounds less threating) when speaking about the matter publicly. Industries, political parties, etc do this kind of thing all the time. (1)AIG changed its name, (2) the left isn't liberal anymore (they're "progressive"), (3) de-beaking is now called beak trimming, and (4) Kentucky Fried Chicken changed its name to KFC. It should also be pointed out that the right picked up "Climate Change" from somewhere. Remember the 1994 IPCC? The CC is for "Climate Change".

1 ... to avoid the stigma of being, you know, AIG.
2 ... due to the (successful) work of Limbaugh and co to change the public perception of liberals and liberalism from "good" to "bad".
3 ... the industry changed its term after widespread outrage about the practice (the practice hasn't changed).
4 ... because they didn't want their name to remind people that their food was unhealthy (ie fried).

 

That can't possibly be true, everyone knows that there is a "global consensus" It is heresy I say.


As an aside, I like that we revisit this thread every six months or so. I figure in twenty years it should be really fun as the doubters will claim that it is proof that it was all ******** and the Disciples of Gore will claim it is only through their hard work and proselytizing that disaster was avoided. I can't wait.

 

No, it isn't. It is a rather large hole in the whole arguement (i.e. if they were so catestrophically wrong about both consequences and history, what else may they be wrong about), but it doesn't really address what may be happening now directly.

No, actually, he's right. Phase shifting (changing the state of matter) toward a less organized system (i.e. solid to liquid) is an endothremic process, while phase shifting toward a more organized system is an exothermic process. That being said, that's actually not the anticipated process (or at least, that's only the beginning of it).

The idea is, as the ice caps melt, the sudden inrush of cold water will shift the warm water currents toward the equator, thus the heat of the equator will be more contained, the caps won't be warmed any more, they'll reform, expand, and, ultimately, dominate the earth enough that their more reflective surface will prevent the Sun from warming the Earth. There are a lot of unproven elements in that theory, and a lot of worst-case assumptions, but it's not entirely unrealistic.