Arctic Sea Ice Continues Expansion

[code1211]

OR...maybe the reality is it's happening...does THAT ever cross your mind?

The question in my mind is, "WHAT is it that's happening?" According to the experts, there was a decline of ice. They showed pictures, they said it indicated warming and that CO2 emitted by activities of man is to blame. That the CO2 is the PRIMARY cause of warming.

When they hold up an example one year, call it proof and recomend a course of action, why is it heresy to re-examine that "proof" as time goes on? The Ice Extent, which they said was decreasing and was therefore a proof of warming caused by CO2 emitted by the activities of man as the PRIMARY cause would continue to decrease if we did not stop the emissions.

We did not stop the CO2 emissions. In truth, we increased the CO2 emissions. The ice extent decrease stopped anyway. I have made a living seeing the obvious when the "experts" are telling me that up is down and left is right and light is dark. I have a healthy suspiscion of anyone who tells me to trust them in spite of what I can SEE to be true.

The prediction is that ice extent will decrease. Ice extent has increased. The prediction was wrong. This is not an isolated case of the prediction being wrong.

If all predictions were right, I would be less skeptical of their expertise. As it is, I remain a skeptic, no a denier, a skeptic.

My question for you is why skepticism does not seem to be in your wheelhouse at all.

Isn't the complete lack of accuracy in the predictions of the Warmers cause for you to have even the slightest doubt of their knowledge on this topic? It seems like it should. If anyone else continuously makes wrong predictions, their credibility eventually suffers.

Why not this group?

I am a skeptic, but I don't believe the scientists have an ulterior motive...

YOU are the one that said: "Maybe the reality of the funding"

When you do even a little bit of research into deniers it always leads back to funding by the very corporations that have billions at stake if we turn away from fossil fuels...WHY are you not skeptical of the reality of THAT funding?

While that is the ongoing drumbeat of the warmers, that sourcing is harder to find than you might think. Care to show links from the recent past that expose these frauds for what they are? Let's limit this to 2005 and following. What you need to show is the expenditures, not a referance in an article with that date that sites something from the 80's.

Government funding, on the other hand, is easily found and is supporting funding that would raise taxes to continue research and justify draconian limitations on activities and justify huge transfers of wealth to UN developing nations.

NASA, NOAA and Had Crut are 3 right off the top of my head.

 

[rdean]

When the weather outside if frightful, it snows. Then, when the summer comes, it gets warmer and that ice that came when it was frightful, melts. So the time of the year where it's "frightful", there is lots of ice, but every summer, there is less to melt.
Funny how that stuff works.

Must be difficult for a Republican. Every Winter, they point and laugh, "see, ice is increasing", then summer comes and the ice melts and they freak out, "Where did it go"?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Arctic Sea Ice has grown to levels that exceed 2006, 2007 and 2008 for this day each year. A tick or so and 2009 will enter the "Standard Deviation Average" for the 30 year period on which the averages are based.

Watch the speeches in Copenhagen. I'm pretty sure that the over dressed, over bearing, limosine riding, leftist scandinavians in attendance will all hop onto their private jets and fly home after the announcements on this topic.

Blizzards in late Fall, growing Arctic Ice, hunters lost in deep snow in the American west.

Eeeyup! The Global Warming is kicking our collective Ars. Link below is the graph.

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20091207_Figure2.png

Yeah well i got this doctored data, that i threw out the raw figures for, and this satellite glitch that shows you are wrong

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

"Since the end of the Ice Age, Earth's temperature has risen approximately 16 degrees F and sea levels have risen a total of 300 feet! Forests have returned where once there was only ice."

Yeah, let's get back to those good ole days. Not a single Librul would survive

 

[Sinatra]

When the weather outside if frightful, it snows. Then, when the summer comes, it gets warmer and that ice that came when it was frightful, melts. So the time of the year where it's "frightful", there is lots of ice, but every summer, there is less to melt.
Funny how that stuff works.

Must be difficult for a Republican. Every Winter, they point and laugh, "see, ice is increasing", then summer comes and the ice melts and they freak out, "Where did it go"?

___

It is not "Republicans" who are freaking over the weather - it's the flat earth warmers.

Your post doesn't even manage to make the point its own author intended.

 

[code1211]

When the weather outside if frightful, it snows. Then, when the summer comes, it gets warmer and that ice that came when it was frightful, melts. So the time of the year where it's "frightful", there is lots of ice, but every summer, there is less to melt.
Funny how that stuff works.

Must be difficult for a Republican. Every Winter, they point and laugh, "see, ice is increasing", then summer comes and the ice melts and they freak out, "Where did it go"?

That is why anamolies are compared to same day different year and that is what the chart represents for Arctic Sea ice extent.

 

[code1211]

QUOTE]

I am a skeptic, but I don't believe the scientists have an ulterior motive...
YOU are the one that said: "Maybe the reality of the funding"

When you do even a little bit of research into deniers it always leads back to funding by the very corporations that have billions at stake if we turn away from fossil fuels...WHY are you not skeptical of the reality of THAT funding?

Welcome to the Dark Side.

 

[Bfgrn]

Welcome to the Dark Side.

While that is the ongoing drumbeat of the warmers, that sourcing is harder to find than you might think. Care to show links from the recent past that expose these frauds for what they are? Let's limit this to 2005 and following. What you need to show is the expenditures, not a referance in an article with that date that sites something from the 80's.

Government funding, on the other hand, is easily found and is supporting funding that would raise taxes to continue research and justify draconian limitations on activities and justify huge transfers of wealth to UN developing nations.

Well one thing has been established; you're a liar...you're NOT a skeptic, you're a denier...and a right wing conspiracy nut too...

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen ( b. February 8, 1940) is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

He is one of the leading global warming skeptics and is a member of the Science, Health, and Economic Advisory Council, of the Annapolis Center, a Maryland-based think tank which has been funded by corporations including ExxonMobil. Writing in the Washington Post, Joel Achenbach wrote that "of all the skeptics, MIT's Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he's doing serious research on the subject."

Lindzen has been a keynote speaker at media events and conferences of a range of think tanks disputing climate change including the Heartland Institute and the Cooler Heads Coalition.

Fossil Fuel Interests Funding
In a biographical note at the foot of a column published in Newsweek in 2007, Lindzen wrote that "his research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies." (Emphasis added).

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."

A decade later Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam reported, based on an interview with Lindzen, that "he accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees from fossil- fuel types in the 1990s, and has taken none of their money since."

On Tobacco
In a 2001 profile in Newsweek, journalist Fred Guterl wrote that Lindzen "clearly relishes the role of naysayer. He'll even expound on how weakly lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking."

----------------------------------

The Heartland Institute

Tobacco ties

Although Heartland calls itself "a genuinely independent source of research and commentary," its has been a frequent ally of, and funded by, the tobacco industry. According to a 1995 internal report by Philip Morris USA (PM) on its corporate contributions budget, the company uses its contributions "as a strategic tool to promote our overall business objectives and to advance our government affairs agenda," in particular by supporting "the work of free market 'think tanks' and other public policy groups whose philosophy is consistent with our point of view. ... [W]e have given general support over the years to such groups as the Heritage Foundation, Heartland Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Washington Legal Foundation and a variety of other organizations that help provide information about the ultimate course of legislation, regulation and public opinion through their studies, papers, op-ed pieces and conferences."

Secrecy on funding sources
While Heartland once disclosed its major supporters, it now refuses to publicly disclose who its corporate and foundation funders are.

Foundation funders
Media Transparency lists Heartland as having received $2,960,555 (unadjusted for inflation) in grants between 1986 and 2006 from a range of foundations including:

* Armstrong Foundation
* Barre Seid Foundation
* Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation
* Jaquelin Hume Foundation
* Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust
* Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation
* Hickory Foundation
* JM Foundation
* John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
* Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
* Rodney Fund
* Roe Foundation
* Scaife Foundations (Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
* Walton Family Foundation

Exxon funding
Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website lists Heartland as having received $676,500 (unadjusted for inflation) from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2006.[39] (As mentioned above, Heartland insist that Exxon has not contributed to the group since 2006.)[27]

Contributions include:

* $30,000 in 1998;
* $115,000 in 2000;
* $90,000 in 2001;
* $15,000 in 2002;
* $85,000 for General Operating Support and $7,500 for their 19th Anniversary Benefit Dinner in 2003;
* $85,000 for General Operating Support and $15,000 for Climate Change Efforts in 2004; and
* $119,000 in 2005; and
* $115,000 in 2006.

---------------------------------------

The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was one of the most outspoken and confrontational industry groups in the United States battling reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Prior to its disbanding in early 2002, it collaborated extensively with a network that included industry trade associations, "property rights" groups affiliated with the anti-environmental Wise Use movement, and fringe groups such as Sovereignty International, which believes that global warming is a plot to enslave the world under a United Nations-led "world government."

Funding
The GCC website was decorated with numerous photos of happy children playing in idyllic farm fields, but it did not provide any information about its budget or where its money comes from. GCC was not registered as a nonprofit organization and was not required to make public disclosures of its IRS tax filings, so it is difficult to obtain even basic information about its finances. However, the information that is publicly available shows that the GCC has spent tens of millions of dollars on the global warming issue.

According to the Los Angeles Times (December 7, 1997) the GCC spent $13 million on its 1997 anti-Kyoto ad campaign, an amount roughly equivalent to Greenpeace’s entire annual budget.

Common Cause has documented more than $63 million in contributions to politicians from members of the Global Climate Coalition from 1989-1999.

GCC's efforts were coordinated with separate campaigns by many of its members, such as the National Coal Association, which spent more than $700,000 on the global climate issue in 1992 and 1993, and the American Petroleum Institute, which paid the Burson-Marsteller PR firm $1.8 million in 1993 for a successful computer-driven "grassroots" letter and phone-in campaign to stop a proposed tax on fossil fuels.

GCC's members and supporters included the following companies and trade associations:

* Air Transport Association
* Allegheny Power
* Aluminum Association, Inc.
* American Automobile Manufacturers Association
* American Commercial Barge Line Co.
* American Farm Bureau Federation
* American Forest & Paper Association
* American Highway Users Alliance
* American Iron and Steel Institute
* American Petroleum Institute
* American Portland Cement Alliance
* Amoco
* Association of American Railroads
* Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
* Atlantic Richfield Coal Company
* Baker Refineries
* Bethlehem Steel
* BHP Minerals
* Chamber of Shipping of America
* Chemical Manufacturers Association
* Chevron
* Chrysler Corporation
* Cinergy
* CONRAIL
* Consumers Energy
* Council of Industrial Boiler Owners
* CSX Transportation, Inc.
* Cyprus-Amax
* Dow Chemical Company
* Drummond Company
* Duke Power Company
* DuPont
* Eastman Chemical
* Edison Electric Institute
* ELCON
* ExxonMobil
* Fertilizer Institute
* Ford Motor Company
* General Motors
* Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
* Greencool
* Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group
* Illinois Power Company
* Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp.
* McDonnell-Douglas
* Mobil Corporation
* National Association of Manufacturers
* National Lime Association
* National Mining Association
* National Ocean Industries Association
* National Petrochemical and Refiners Association
* Natural Rural Electric Cooperative Association
* Norfolk Southern
* Northern Indiana Public Serv. Co.
* Ohio Edison
* Parker Drilling Company
* Process Gas Consumers
* Shell
* Society of the Plastic Industry
* Southern Company
* Steel Manufacturers Association
* TECO Energy Inc.
* Texaco
* U.S. Chamber of Commerce
* USX Corporation
* Union Carbide
* Union Pacific
* Virginia Power
* Western Fuels Association

sourcewatch

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course Sinatra and the rest of the lying fools are not going to post real sources. There are none that show that the Arctic Ice is increasing. They will continue to lie, and use weasel words until the reality of global warming actually hits their homes. Then they will scream about the scientists not telling them about it.

We saw this same effect at Mt. St. Helens before it erupted. We will see it again as the positive feedbacks make the scientists worst predictions look like best case scenerios.

Satellites Show Arctic Literally on Thin Ice04.06.09 Additional imagery and background information for this story can be found here.

NASA - Satellites Show Arctic Literally on Thin Ice


The decline in multiyear (including second-year ice) sea ice coverage has also been measured by NASA’s QuikScat satellite from 1999 to 2009. Each field shows the coverage on January 1 of that year. There is a 40 percent drop in coverage between 2005 and 2007. Credit: Ron Kwok, NASA/JPL
> Larger image The latest Arctic sea ice data from NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center show that the decade-long trend of shrinking sea ice cover is continuing. New evidence from satellite observations also shows that the ice cap is thinning as well.

Arctic sea ice works like an air conditioner for the global climate system. Ice naturally cools air and water masses, plays a key role in ocean circulation, and reflects solar radiation back into space. In recent years, Arctic sea ice has been declining at a surprising rate.

Scientists who track Arctic sea ice cover from space announced today that this winter had the fifth lowest maximum ice extent on record. The six lowest maximum events since satellite monitoring began in 1979 have all occurred in the past six years (2004-2009).

Until recently, the majority of Arctic sea ice survived at least one summer and often several. But things have changed dramatically, according to a team of University of Colorado, Boulder, scientists led by Charles Fowler. Thin seasonal ice -- ice that melts and re-freezes every year -- makes up about 70 percent of the Arctic sea ice in wintertime, up from 40 to 50 percent in the 1980s and 1990s. Thicker ice, which survives two or more years, now comprises just 10 percent of wintertime ice cover, down from 30 to 40 percent

 

[edthecynic]

There was marginal warming in the 1990s. There has been marginal cooling for nearly a decade since.

No matter how many times you mindless drones parrot this lie, it doesn't change the fact that this last decade was the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Please explain how a decade that's been COOLING could be the warmest???
Please link to your source for your "data." Even Faux Snooze admits your "cooling" decade has been the warmest.

U.N. Weather Agency at Climate Conference Says This Is Warmest Decade on Record - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com

 

[Sinatra]

There was marginal warming in the 1990s. There has been marginal cooling for nearly a decade since.

No matter how many times you mindless drones parrot this lie, it doesn't change the fact that this last decade was the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Please explain how a decade that's been COOLING could be the warmest???
Please link to your source for your "data." Even Faux Snooze admits your "cooling" decade has been the warmest.

U.N. Weather Agency at Climate Conference Says This Is Warmest Decade on Record - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com

You are quite the gullible cynic - I suggest you turn in your cynic badge post-haste as you are clearly unworthy of the title!

Who said the following?


"The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

 

[code1211]

Well one thing has been established; you're a liar...you're NOT a skeptic, you're a denier...and a right wing conspiracy nut too...

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen ( b. February 8, 1940) is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Richard Lindzen hasn't accepted any money from fossil fuel interests since before the year 2000.

Right wing conspiracy nut?

 

[Old Rocks]

Naw, they are smart enough to run Lindzen's money through the tobacco companys.

 

[Old Rocks]

By the way, look at the daily graph on the arctic ice. Once more we are tracking right with the lowest years on record;

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

 

[code1211]

There was marginal warming in the 1990s. There has been marginal cooling for nearly a decade since.

No matter how many times you mindless drones parrot this lie, it doesn't change the fact that this last decade was the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Please explain how a decade that's been COOLING could be the warmest???
Please link to your source for your "data." Even Faux Snooze admits your "cooling" decade has been the warmest.

U.N. Weather Agency at Climate Conference Says This Is Warmest Decade on Record - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rss_trends.jpg

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, if one is so intellectually dishonest as to use a starting point at 1998, one can show a slight decline. Should you use a starting point in 1997, or 1999, then you show a slight rise. All are false, for the median for the long run does not show a decline at all, and considering a solar minimum and a strong La Nina, there should have been much colder years in 2007, 2008, and 2009.

By the way, 2009 is shaping up to be in the top 5 warmest. Some cooling.


2009 one of hottest years on record: US study

WASHINGTON, Dec 8 (AFP) Dec 08, 2009
The world saw one of the hottest years on record in 2009 and has notched up the hottest decade since records began, a report by a US climate agency said Tuesday.
Scientists at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) found in a preliminary annual report that compared current data with information dating back to the 1800s, that global land and ocean surface temperatures so far this year were the fifth warmest on record.

Temperatures from January to the end of October have been 1.01 degrees Fahrenheit above the long-term average, the report said.

A similar temperature rise was seen for the decade from 2000-2009, making it the hottest on record.

 

[edthecynic]

There was marginal warming in the 1990s. There has been marginal cooling for nearly a decade since.

No matter how many times you mindless drones parrot this lie, it doesn't change the fact that this last decade was the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Please explain how a decade that's been COOLING could be the warmest???
Please link to your source for your "data." Even Faux Snooze admits your "cooling" decade has been the warmest.

U.N. Weather Agency at Climate Conference Says This Is Warmest Decade on Record - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com

You are quite the gullible cynic - I suggest you turn in your cynic badge post-haste as you are clearly unworthy of the title!

Who said the following?


"The scientific community would come down on me in no
uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn't statistically significant."

That quote is based upon the University of East Anglia data which you CON$ say is worthless. The NOAA/NCDC data says 2005 was warmer than 1998, and 2007 tied 1998.

I love how deniers will use data they say is worthless when they think it supports their deliberate deceptions.

Even your U of EA data shows that the decade from 1999 to 2008 was warmer than the previous decade that included 1998. So no matter how you try to cook your data, you're still saying the warmest decade in the history of direct instrument measurement was a decade of cooling.

 

[edthecynic]

There was marginal warming in the 1990s. There has been marginal cooling for nearly a decade since.

No matter how many times you mindless drones parrot this lie, it doesn't change the fact that this last decade was the WARMEST in the history of direct instrument measurement.

Please explain how a decade that's been COOLING could be the warmest???
Please link to your source for your "data." Even Faux Snooze admits your "cooling" decade has been the warmest.

U.N. Weather Agency at Climate Conference Says This Is Warmest Decade on Record - Science News | Science & Technology | Technology News - FOXNews.com

http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/rss_trends.jpg

Well code, there you go again. Not only dishonestly using the Troposphere data instead of the Surface Temp data, you are using the cooked Christy and Spencer numbers where they deliberately used the wrong sign to correct for Diurnal Satellite drift.
Here is the correct data for the Troposphere which also shows warming.

You tried these same cooked numbers on me on the AOL boards without success, what made you think you would fair any better on this board?

Global, monthly time series of brightness temperature anomaly for channel TLT (Lower Troposphere), the anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow tropospheric warming. The three primary El Niños during the past 20 years are clearly evident as peaks in the time series occurring during 1982-83, 1987-88, and 1997-98, with the most recent one being the largest.

 

[Sinatra]

It's a little too cold these days...

 

[edthecynic]

It's a little too cold these days...

Keep telling yourself that!