A few months ago John Roach at National Geographic wrote a global warming piece entitled “Arctic Ice at All-Time Low” which illustrates the dishonesty of the global warming crowd.
How in the world would these scientists know that the ice is at a all time low since the beginning of this planet? Answer = They don’t. They know its the lowest it’s been since they started measuring it in 1979, so a more honest headline would have been “Arctic Ice At Its Lowest Since 1979”. That doesn’t sound scary enough for them tho so they throw in the “all-time” deal and ta-da! Scary stuff.
This Arctic ice deal is a major talking point in the environazis bag of tricks when they try to prove that global warming exists. But they seem to always forget about the other pole, the Antarctic. Which is getting colder.
Some analysts have speculated that the new record could be evidence of global
warming. But is it? Even though it may sound very complicated, it turns out that
the Earth is round. At the global scale, there is not one polar region but, in
fact, two. There is also sea ice on the Southern Hemisphere. It turns out that
the Antarctic sea ice area reached 16.2 million squared kilometers in 2007 – a
new absolute record high since the measurements started in 1979
And now a team of scientists have discovered that climate cycles don’t last 28 years, no, they can last thousands:
A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in
Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary
on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen
in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trend…“Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in
the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global
warming,” said Morison….The Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until about 1970, but then varied on
more or less decadal time scales, with signs of an underlying upward trend,
until the late 1990s, when it again stabilized. During its strong
counterclockwise phase in the 1990s, the Arctic environment changed markedly,
with the upper Arctic Ocean undergoing major changes that persisted into this
century. Many scientists viewed the changes as evidence of an ongoing climate
shift, raising concerns about the effects of global warming on the Arctic.
All of which should tell those honest enough to admit it that we just don’t have enough study of the environment to tell whether man-made global warming really exists, or if it is just a natural climate cycle our planet is going through. Of course admitting that would cost these “researchers” lots of money, lots of advertisements, and lots of concerts.
In short, it won’t happen.
Finally, check out this very thorough fisking of the IPCC by John Mclean:
The common perception of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) is one of an impartial organisation that thoroughly
reviews the state of climate science and produces reports which are clear,
accurate, comprehensive, well substantiated and without bias.One only needs examine some of its procedural documents, its
reports and its dealings with reviewers of the report drafts to discover how
wrong this impression is.The IPCC is not and never has been an organisation that
examines all aspects of climate change in a neutral and impartial manner. Its
internal procedures reinforce that bias; it makes no attempts to clarify its
misleading and ambiguous statements. It is very selective about the material
included in its reports; its fundamental claims lack evidence. And most
importantly, its actions have skewed the entire field of climate science.Over the last 20 years and despite its dominance and
manipulation of climate science, the IPCC has failed to provide concrete
evidence of a significant human influence on climate.It’s time to call a halt to its activities and here are ten
reasons for doing so.
- The IPCC charter emphasises a human influence on climate, not climate in general
- Its participants are not impartial towards a possible human influence on climate
- The IPCC promotes a self-sustaining hypothesis of man-made warming
- The IPCC’s misuse of the concept of consensus
- Many IPCC report authors have vested interests
- The IPCC report authors are often also reviewers
- IPPC gives a misleading impression of the extent of review and support for its claims.
- IPCC advances a very weak argument for a significant human influence on climate
- Its primary conclusion was probably pre-determined
- Ethics and professionalism
He gives a detailed description under each reason so go check it out, well worth the read.
See author page
The problem with the ‘man mad global warming’ crowd and carbon dioxide, is that they haven’t bothered to study any long range examinations of carbon dioxide against average planetary temperature. Recorded history is the last second on a clock on the last day of the year on the last month of the year, with the year starting 4.5 billion years ago.
Turn back a couple of months and you can find times when planetary temperatures were far higher, and yet would never exceed +14 C above present. Those times had lovely features: low plate movement, continents riding far lower than they do today, vast shallow seas over continents acting has heat reservoirs, no continents at either pole. During most of the pangaea times, this would be true, save for the time that supercontinent wandered into the south pole… then the planet became a snowball for a few million years. During the hundreds of millions of years when the average planetary temperature was that high, and stable, carbon dioxide amounts wandered all over the place and only getting back to the carboniferous do you see that level zoom up to over 20 times its current level (over 7,000ppm vs ~312ppm today) and more methane and water vapor, too… all ‘greenhouse gases’. Life had lots of time to remove that carbon dioxide, and put it into deposits we see today: coal, oil, methane, and calcium carbonate (along with other carbonate rocks). Most of it went into rocks that you can’t burn or do much with to get the carbon out of them.
You want global warming? Get that damned continent out of the south pole as it is a giant heat sink for the planet, then slow down the continents and volcanic activity, then let the continents subside and water flow over them to get those lovely days of Jurrasic and Cretaceous back so the planetary climate is like the Bahamas.
As it is, the outlook for the next few million years is chilly with long glacial periods punctuated by short warming periods marked by erratic temperature swings. Check back in 5 million years for an updated forecast.
First the bible says that the earth is less than 10,000 years old don’t want to lose that base by going past that now do we ?
Second we as humans aren’t too concerned about what happens south of the equator. Few of us live there.
And humans are more interested in what is going to happen in the next 100 years compared to what might happen in say a billion years.
First, I do not believe the earth is 10000 years old. Neither do many Republicans. Second, what does the fact that most of us don’t live in antarctic have to do with anything? If your so ignorant that you do not understand that to reasonably predict the future climate changes you need to know what happened in the past then your beyond help. But most FA readers have known that for some time based on your comments.
Everything in nature seeks balance.
That includes us – or one would hope!
What the balance is for the earth at any one particular time in its continual state of flux will always be unknown. cosmic winds and solar winds are also a vast variable that are in constant states of flux.
Water vapour – a massive variable and funnily enough never mentioned !
Half the time the experts get the weekly weather wrong!
Saying that .035% CO2 (never mind that we only contribute 1-2% of that) is adversely effecting the weather is like saying that 1000 people pissing in the Mediterranean will cause it to go toxic.
What an utter complete load of crap!