Arctic Sea Ice Growing At Less Than Average Rate

29 Responses to Arctic Sea Ice Growing At Less Than Average Rate

1. Anonymous says:

   12/12/2008 at 11:55 am

   There is no such thing as “Global warming.”everything proves global warming to you alarmists,(Don Quixote syndrome) the reason none of your so called experts will have a debate with real scientists whom you call names for even calling questions to the Alarmists which is windmill fighting like Don Quixote who was delusional, as are ye! If not you should get your so called experts to start having debates on the issues.Oh yeah I forgot, “you say the debate is over.” The question is settled because you delusionally say so.

   Reply
   • Anonymous says:

     1/9/2009 at 9:21 am

     wow. “no such thing as ‘Global warming.’” How irresponsible is this person. I’m sure he means this is his opinion. I have an opinion about it as well but would rather apply a logical and mature approach. Generally most people saying there isn’t an issue just aren’t thinking things through. Fine, forget about global warming. I wonder what this opinionated person has done in the last year to act as a responsible member of this planet. It looks like his greatest contribution is to support “use and discard” rather than “plan for the future.” It’s much easier to say “everything is OK” and we don’t need to be considerate. I guess this “Don Quixote syndrome” guy has that in spades. How sad for everyone.

     Reply
     • Anonymous says:

       1/13/2009 at 10:45 pm

       ce levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

       The data is being reported by the University of Illinois’s Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

       Reply
       • Jim says:

         1/14/2009 at 7:58 pm

         “Anonymous”, here’s a chart of the daily time-series data from the NSIDC and NASA. It continues to show a sea-ice extent that is well below the long-term average.
2. Green Man says:

   12/12/2008 at 1:08 pm

   Anonymous, global warming is easily defined – it’s warming that takes place on a global scale. It’s easily measured – with thermometers around the world. When the average global temperature measured by those thermometers rises, that’s global warming. It’s been measured. It exists.

   There can be no debate on this issue, unless you believe that the thermometers are wrong. Is that your argument?

   Reply
   • Jon says:

     1/16/2009 at 3:47 pm

     What is the cause of this global warming? What are the effects? Has CO2 ever been this high before?

     Reply
3. Anonymous says:

   12/12/2008 at 5:00 pm

   Oh and my the way there is no such thing as “gravity.” Everything proves gravity to you alarmists,(Don Quixote syndrome) the reason none of your so called experts will have a debate with real scientists whom you call names for even calling questions to the Alarmists which is windmill fighting like Don Quixote who was delusional, as are ye! If not you should get your so called experts to start having debates on the issues.Oh yeah I forgot, “you say the debate is over.” The question is settled because you delusionally say so. Eighteen billion PhD’s are suing Al Gore because he will not debate them. Al Gore is ridiculous; Al Gore believes in gravity; therefore there is no gravity. How am I supposed to know you don’t own stock in an elevator company! Wake up, people. It’s all a scam!

   Reply
4. Killing me says:

   12/12/2008 at 5:17 pm

   There is no such thing as “Evolution.” everything proves evolution to you alarmists,(Don Quixote syndrome) the reason none of your so called experts will have a debate with real scientists whom you call names for even calling questions to the Alarmists which is windmill fighting like Don Quixote who was delusional, as are ye! If not you should get your so called experts to start having debates on the issues.Oh yeah I forgot, “you say the debate is over.” The question is settled because you delusionally say so.

   Reply
5. Anonymous says:

   12/13/2008 at 4:09 am

   Is that my ass or a hole in the ground?

   Oh yeah I forgot, “you say the debate is over.” I put quotation marks around “you say.”

   We are Anonymous. We are legion. We are stupid.

   Reply
   • Anonymous says:

     1/16/2009 at 2:44 pm

     The Earth is dynamic and its temperature has fluctuated for billions of years. Pollution and environmental destruction are very negative, but the claims that we are having such a drastic impact on the Earth’s temperature are not well supported. We should do our best to ensure a more sustainable and less polluting existence, but we are not responsible for “global warming”. We do not control the Earth – it controls us. The fact that ice ages have occurred historically further illustrates the more powerful natural forces that are always working with or without the assistance of humans.

     Reply
     • Jim says:

       1/16/2009 at 3:15 pm

       Anonymous strikes again, again without data.

       Reply
6. Max says:

   1/18/2009 at 3:38 pm

   I wrote the last post Jim. I am not the same “anonymous” as before.

   There is data everywhere to support my statements. If fact, you can even do the calculation yourself:

   Figure out approximately how much CO2 is added to the atmosphere each year by humans as a percentage of total naturally occurring CO2 – this is staggeringly low. I have done a quick calculation with data available on the internet – it’s less than 1%. This figure alone shows that there must be other forces at work. And as for sea ice melting, I would venture to say that these ice sheets have been growing and shrinking throughout history long before “recorded history”. THE EARTH IS DYNAMIC! Pollution is terrible, however, and our existence is completely unsustainable on a long-term basis, but we are only insignificantly contributing to “global warming” at present. Likewise, I strongly doubt that the ice sheets have done anything this winter except grow larger – do you have any data that refutes this statement?

   Reply
   • Peregrin Wood says:

     1/18/2009 at 3:43 pm

     Everywhere? It’s not under my couch, Max. Name some sources, Max.

     Reply
   • Jim says:

     1/18/2009 at 5:10 pm

     Of course ice sheets grow larger in the winter. Your statements such as “total naturally occurring CO2″ are so broad as to possibly mean just anything. And as Peregrin Wood points out, you haven’t linked to any sources of data. Anybody can do secret calculations that secretly prove anything beyond a doubt. Bring your data to the light of day — and make they’re relevant to the question at hand. For instance, you’ll have to show that additions of 1% extra CO2 to the atmosphere by humans each year is not a substantial impact and is actually “staggeringly low” in its effect. Just because your figure says “1%” doesn’t mean that the figure is substantively unimportant. Make my bloodstream a 1% solution of arsenic and I’m still dead.

     Reply
7. Max says:

   1/30/2009 at 10:55 am

   Jim,

   I will put a formal calculation together as soon as possible and see what you think. I am actually interested to hear your opinion.

   Have you thoroughly considered and quantified the potential “naturally occurring” external factors that may be contributing to our altered climate for example Milankovitch cycles (Earth’s Orbit around the sun) and possibly the Sun’s orbit around the galaxy? If so, I would be interested in your input.

   I agree with your arsenic analogy, however I am still not convinced as a whole. This is a very interesting topic, but at present I see to many other potential variables in this equation. I will do a calculation as soon as possible and see what you think.

   Max

   Reply
   • Green Man says:

     1/30/2009 at 11:11 am

     “Possibly the Sun’s orbit around the galaxy?” Are you joking, Max? You are aware that the size and rotational speed of the Milky Way galaxy has just been recalculated, right?

     http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99160083

     That means that there is no up to date research that could possibly analyze for any effect of the Sun’s position in and movement through the Milky Way galaxy upon the Earth’s climate. None.

     You might as well demand that climatologists integrate the contribution of extraterrestrial civilizations on Earth’s warming climate.

     Reply
     • Max says:

       1/30/2009 at 3:11 pm

       This is just one of the many variables to be considered. We are living on a rock that is orbiting a ball of fire in space – I think people sometimes take the complexity of this situation for granted.

       I think that changes in the Earth’s climate cannot be attributed only to human production of C02. I welcome you to convince me though and I will still do my calculation.

       Reply
       • Green Man says:

         1/30/2009 at 4:17 pm

         But Max, no one is arguing that changes in the Earth’s climate should be attributed ONLY to human production of CO2. You’re setting up a strawman.
8. Max says:

   2/2/2009 at 11:08 am

   Let’s redefine the argument then. My position is that even if humans cut C02 emissions it will have no effect on global climate change.

   Reply
   • Green Man says:

     2/2/2009 at 11:30 am

     Max, that’s an absurd position that is completely out of touch with scientific research. To believe that, you’d have to believe that the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide has no relationship to climate.

     Reply
   • Jim says:

     2/2/2009 at 11:46 am

     I’ve seen this confusion, intentional or not, in a lot of discussion on climate change. Individuals point to a piece of research concluding that even if we cut CO2 emissions, the condition of our climate will get worse. Then they say, “see, we might as well emit that CO2, since it doesn’t matter!” But that ignores the very important distinction between a little worse, a moderate amount worse, quite a bit worse and cataclysmically worse. The degree of change matters in climate, just as the difference between a migraine and a skewer through the head matters.

     Reply
     • Green Man says:

       2/2/2009 at 1:38 pm

       That’s right. The situation is akin to that of a driver who sees that the vehicle in front of him has suddenly stopped, and there’s no way that he can break in time to avoid a collision.

       Does that mean that the driver shouldn’t brake? No, because the velocity of impact makes a BIG difference when it comes to outcome.

       Do we want a climate fender bender, or a 52-car pileup?

       Reply
9. Max says:

   2/4/2009 at 9:21 am

   Just out of curiosity, do either of you do research in this field?

   Thanks,

   Max

   Reply
   • Jim says:

     2/4/2009 at 9:58 am

     Nope.

     Reply
10. Max says:

    2/4/2009 at 9:22 am

    I mean formal research – I am not being sarcastic.

    Reply
    • Green Man says:

      2/4/2009 at 9:27 am

      Not I – I presume by “formal” you mean professional scientific research.

      Reply
11. Max says:

    2/4/2009 at 12:31 pm

    Okay good. Me neither – then we are all on an equal playing field. I still have to do the calculation. It will be up here eventually.

    I just wanted to make sure as an accountant that I am not corresponding with the 2 foremost experts in the field.

    Reply
12. Jim says:

    2/20/2009 at 11:11 am

    OK, all this data must be considered faulty because the National Snow and Ice Data Center now admits their sensor has failed and has been delivering faulty data for an extended period of time.

    Reply
    • Jim says:

      2/20/2009 at 12:12 pm

      That Jim isn’t me, by the way. And no, that’s not true. Read here, Other Jim. A sensor failed over the last month, the failure is being addressed, and the trends of the data are backed up by other sensors.

      Reply