C'mon CJunk...everyone knows that heated air rises and this rising heated air induces changes in the atmosphere and this change in the atmosphere produces the wind. See, global warming is at fault! /sarc off

How long ? Not until the media realizes there is no more "business" to be gained by milking the AGW scam.

The Internet can provide the real story to the general public and it is. Many, many young people I know do not read newspapers or watch TV news anymore. The media still has sway over the older generations though.

The media just hopes another fearmongering story comes along soon. I would bet many Journalists are privately embarrassed with covering the Kyoto hoax these days.

So, for many, sadly too many, they will not smell the corpse until headlines blaze
'UNITED NATIONS' KYOTO PLAN WAS A HUGE SCAM'

Many knew this all along. Just like the media is only now "discovering" that biofuels was also a big scam.

[Biofuels speeding global warming] Vancouver Province.

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=4ab917e4-5fcd-46c9-a257-380536f38329

I see that CTV and Global have cut back on news and laid off a number of staff ... no doubt they will also blame global warming for their lousy news coverage which is affecting their poor ratings ... rather than even consider their new bias as perhaps the main reason.

Global Warming is not a theory, but a religion, therefore it will never stink. Like all good religions [sic], it espouses a Universal Truth, manifests all things, and is the one and only True Belief.

Funny, every time one of these stories comes out the sceptics seize onto it as if Global Warming has suddenly gone away.
What NASA is telling you is that they now know why the ice shrank faster than the scientists they had anticipated. This doesn't change anything, it's just another positive feedback from global warming.

 "Nghiem said the rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. "Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,"

The ice was melting at an increased rate prior to this, but now it appears another local mechanism has kicked in. I would guess these changing wind patterns have something to do with increased open water changing local wind conditions resulting in accelerated melt.

Yep ... that's why for the last two years every ecophobe on the planet has been pointing to the rapid decline of ice as a sure sign of AGW ... context alb, context ... it's a wonderful thing.

"I would guess..." - albatros
That's the problem, you are doing nothing more than guessing.

"A new NASA-led study found a 23-percent loss in the extent of the Arctic's thick, year-round sea ice cover during the past two winters. This drastic reduction of perennial winter sea ice is the primary cause of this summer's fastest-ever sea ice retreat on record and subsequent smallest-ever extent of total Arctic coverage."

"The Arctic Ocean's shift from perennial to seasonal ice is preconditioning the sea ice cover there for more efficient melting and further ice reductions each summer. The shift to seasonal ice decreases the reflectivity of Earth's surface and allows more solar energy to be absorbed in the ice-ocean system.
." - NASA

The ice was been melting at an alarming rate before. So what shall we call it now? A shocking melt maybe?

Like I said, it's possitive feedback resulting from the increased melt due to AWG.

Context Paul2, context.

An important phrase in the report is contained in this sentence:

This drastic reduction of perennial winter sea ice is the primary cause of this summer's fastest-ever sea ice retreat on record and subsequent smallest-ever extent of total Arctic coverage.

It's worth bearing in mind just how far back reliable records go on this phenomenon -- which is, "not very."

Really too bad that this melting did not occur last year, or they could have recreated Amundesens successful traversing of the Northwest Passage on its 100th anniversary.

Can't wait for the Nobel Peace Prize announcement, that Gore really deserves it :) Carry on knuckle draggers.

"sea ice retreat on record"

The age of multi-year/multi-decadal ice can be easily determined by satelitte based spectroanalysis.

I'd be more impressed if you knew how to use "it's" properly.

"Steve V at October 8, 2007 3:57 PM"

Let's not give too much credit where credit isn't due. Gore is simply a public figure with brand recognition. Though I give him credit for using his status in order to educate the masses, there are thousands of scientists doing the grunt work of climate change science that are far more deserving than Gore. Hansen is one name that comes to mind that in my opinion is more worthy than Gore. Nicholas Stern may be another that should be considered.
Speaking of giving too much credit. You really shouldn’t classify all sceptics as knuckle-draggers, it’s just not far to lump them all into one big heap like that. You see, knuckle-dragging is simply an evolutionary step many sceptic have yet to achieve, and remain limited to knuckle-walking. By encompassing them all as knuckle-draggers you reduce many who have had success at attaining that semi-erect posture.
And the sceptic at SDA thought I would never defend them.

alba,

Sorry there is nothing in the article that confirms AGW

On its face the article says it is a wind pattern....as opposed to other explainations that have directly blamed AGW.
ALternatively the article does not excplicity deny a an AGW cause.

If there was an AGW cause to this dont you think this would have been included?

So why do we have more sea ice in the antarctic, a record no less.

Is AGW and northern hemisphere only phenomena? Kind of makes the G unecessary if it is.

"I would guess..." - albatros
That's the problem, you are doing nothing more than guessing.

Posted by: Bryan at October 8, 2007 3:13 PM"

Considering this has just been released to the pubic, without actually being part of the study, guessing is all we can do until further studies are published.
So Bryan, what would your hypothesis be with regards to the altered wind patterns mentioned?

23%. Less then the state of Texas compared to the whole northern ice cap.Hey alby.Do your part and quit wasting electrons by posting.Me? I'm firing up the barbie and enjoying the rare thing called Indian summer here.Imagine!! Ice melts when it gets above 0C!! Holy crap. Who would have thunk it?

I believe the "record" of ice expansion goes back to 1979, when satellites began tracking it.

Reports from the British Admiralty in the 1800s and Canada's own St. Roche in the 1940s both ice free passage through the Arctic at times.

"Stephen at October 8, 2007 4:47 PM"

Stephen, considering they are speaking of reductions of perennial ice, I don't think they needed to mention global warming as fluxes in multi-year ice is an indicator of climate change. I will however try to locate whatever they have published on this as the release is somewhat limited.
Don't kid yourself, global warming is not only taking place in the Northern Hemisphere. As above, it's not the freeze of ice over a winter that is an indicator of climate change, it's the amount of ice that remains through the summer and into the next freezing cycle. Right now there is an increase in winter ice. This is indicative of a change in local weather patterns and does nothing to counter any arguments about anthropogenic global warming.

Justthinkin at October 8, 2007 5:07 PM
Rocky, don't burn yourself on that BBQ, in Namao you were never considered by your peers to be very bright.
Funny how you never stick around to debate climate change.

Chip....please don't give alby facts beynd 1998.Just because they are true does'nt matter.Didn't you know AGW only started in 2001???

Albatros: What caused the warming that allowed Amundsen to navigate the Northwest Passage over 100 years ago?

Damn, another religion thread!

I see where this site is being criticized for being anti-science and anti-scientist.

On the contrary, I find most people on this site to be quite committed to pursuit of the truth, which is what science should be about.

You know, actually finding proof about an assertion on the physical world around us.

Genetics, DNA, astronomy have given us all wonderful insights into the miracle of our earth.

The objection (and I can only speak on my own behalf) is the political science based on the science fiction of man-made global warming.

Everybody knows the globe is warming. Mars is even warming at a rate three times that of the Earth, according to scientific observations by NASA.

Just could be, and this is just a theory, that both planets are warming due mostly to solar activity.

But that would be based only on scientific observation, not a need to transfer our hard-earned money to other countries around the world.

If those countries would like our lifestyle, they'll have to work for it ... just like we did.

Ward: There was no indication that Amundsen had an ice-free passage. The fact that he took 3 years to make the trip implies that he did not have an easy time.

More recently, the Manhattan did do a Northwest passage although as you can see it was not ice free.

Regards,
John

The article indicated that the reduction in perenial ice coverage was due to a odd weather condition that started at the beginning of the century.

You assert that is happeneing all over. But argument by assertion is generally not a productive debate. So rather than assert lets deal with why there was a record set on ice coverage at the south pole?

Wait I know, local conditions that dont contradict AGW right?

Set you free: Ah, the old Mars is warming argument.

Regards,
John

John:

The globe is warming.

Every individual has to adapt to this phenomenon in their own way.

It's convenient to let the fledgling one world government pretend that redistributing wealth will stop any of this.

But, since your are willing to part with your money, may as well send it to me. I could put your guilt money to good use, like buying a six-pack.

John, Set You Free is going to waste your guilt money on beer. Beer releases CO2 and makes you fart. He's gonna KILL US ALL!!!!

Send ME the money. I'll use it to put a supercharger on my Ford flat head. Much better!

Phantom:

Damn you! You're onto my conspiracy to destroy the world.

I've only had one beer watching the Roughriders destroy the Stampeders and farted all the way through the second half.

Must have been that ceasar, two glasses of wine and three beer I consumed last night.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_on_The_Great_Pacific_Climate_Shift_and_the_Relationship_of_Oceans_on_Global_Temperatures.pdf

Seems a more straight forward answer to the arctic/antarctic paradox. If one stretches the cyclic pattern to 40 years it covers the hot 1930's in North America.

If you look at the satellite sequences showing the recent minima you can see the ice already expanding down the east coast of Greenland.

John Cross, what caused the first Ice Age to recede/melt? Neanderthals in their SUVs?

Must have been fartin' mastadons.

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml

From the link: " There are two possible explanations ... absorbing more and more of the sun's warmth. The other is that changes in reflectivity of Triton's ice may have caused it to absorb more heat.

Earth warming, Mars warming, Triton warming, but we KNOW the sun's output hasn't increased.

John Cross: I would think the length of time it took for Amundsen to complete his voyage might have something to do with the fact it took place in 1903 - 06. While something to behold in their day, ships at that time were not well equipped for this type of voyage.

Bottom line is that the passage was free enough to sail through at that time. You or Alby need to explain what caused it to happen then.

Also the fact it took three years indicates that the route was traversible for at least that length of time, even if intermitently.

Either Amundsen was lucky enought to pick exactly the right three years to make his journey, or it was passable for a lnger period than that.

set you free "Everybody knows the globe is warming. Mars is even warming at a rate three times that of the Earth, according to scientific observations by NASA."

That's quite common, Mars' mean temperature fluctuates wildly. It's ironic that people who call themselves skeptics are so quick to believe some pretty ridiculous things so long as they contradict AGW.

Jose:

That's the whole point.

Show me a time in the history of the earth when the climate HASN'T changed, or articulate what the perfect climate would be.

Those are scientific facts and I'm totally in favour of scientific honesty.

Political science is another matter and I happen to believe sending my hard-earned money to total strangers will not make a bit of difference to how much the climate changes.

2,200 “scientists” worldwide attest that global-warming is a catastrophic manmade occurrence and it is these quacks that Gore relies on. 17,000 scientists from relevant fields signed a petition saying Gore and his minions were full of sh!t.

"That's quite common, Mars' mean temperature fluctuates wildly. It's ironic that people who call themselves skeptics are so quick to believe some pretty ridiculous things so long as they contradict AGW."
Yeah but somehow the earth is different right Jose? Maybe were not even in the same solar system!
By the way the St. Roch navigated the Northwest passage in eight-six days. West to east.

Amundsen vessel was small, very small, and his objective was not to sail the passage but to locate the magnetic North Pole.

As for the current Navigation of the Northwest passage it is described as "Hypothetical"

Set you free: Hey, I don't have any problem with beer - after all it is made from good old recycled carbon - non of this sequestered stuff!

Phantom: I hope you are planning to buy the turbocharger tuned for E-85!

Apollyon: Re ice ages, the timing shows that it is related to orbital mechanics. Google Milankovitch cycles.

Also, the petition you refer to was the OISM Petition project and was well before Gore's time (it doesn;t even mention him). But if you would like to defend the science in it then I am willing to listen.

Ward: I don't doubt that the passage was navigable, the question is was it ice free?

Regards,
John.

albatros, jose, john cross & all other AGW accolytes:

Let's humour you for just a minute, mm-kay? Let's pretend that AGW is "real", and the "science" behind it is unbiased, unpoliticized and accurate.

*ahem*

Can you please explain how our sending $billions to China so they can build hundreds of coal-fired generating stations in the next 2-3 years is a boon to the environment? How the neutering of our western economy (thereby permitting the logical shift of whatever manufacturing and production that is here to the 3rd world) and all the massive job loss and massive changes to our quality of life will benefit Gaia, when the 3rd world will keep belching out greenhouse gases at unprecedented rates?

Please explain.

Hopefully you work for the civil service; should we follow Kyoto to the letter, you might not have many career ops left in the private manufacturing sector.

Or perhaps your portfolios are loaded with Chinese investments, and Kyoto will bring you major cash windfalls. It's working for Maurice Strong, after all.

Hey! Maybe you guys are major players in the carbon credit pyramid scheme, and you can cleanup in that arena. Better yet, if you have a house that uses 20x the normal household electricity, you can even buy your carbon credits from yourself, and save more dough! Ask the Goreacle about that one; it's a sure-fire winner.

mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm

So Bryan, what would your hypothesis be with regards to the altered wind patterns mentioned? - albatros
I don't have one, albatros. These things are not anywhere near my field of expertise, therefore i will not pretend to be an armchair environmental expert. I'll be sure to keep an eye out for your published research papers that undeniably prove that you and i are responsible for the impending end of the world.
No, the only hypothesis i have regarding climate is that the mere existance of weathermen(or women), weather channels, tornado sirens, the Farmers Almanac, weather balloons, hail insurance, flood protection walls/ aquaducts, historical record keeping of weather and temperature, hurricane shelters, etc., etc., leads me to believe that weather changes. Maybe even *gasp* the climate can change.
I remember being taught at a young age that some 70 million years ago my region was quite tropic and thriving with dinosaurs. Then the climate changed and along came the cold - some would go as far as calling it an "ice age" - gradually heating up again until it's "end" around 15,000 to 11,000 years ago.
Now it's pretty warm again and the ice is mostly gone, some of it is actually still disappearing but growing in other locations at the same time.
That weird and wacky weather, eh?
I wonder what the folks digging up all this debate 1,000 years from now will think of it all? Will they laugh at how simple we were, and completely in the dark?
On a related note, I wonder if we will ever know whether all those billions companies spent on Y2K research was worth it. Was there ever a problem to begin with or was it just a perfect scam. "...See? Billions of dollars spent and nothing bad happened - lotsa money obviously solved the problem"

Provide me the proof, albatros. The undeniable proof of AGW!
A national leader once said of proof - "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven"
When you can meet these criteria, i will gladly help you build a boat for the coming apocalypse - if my money hasn't been redistributed by then...

"Willerslev's ancient DNA successes have implications for a wide range of fields, from climate change to ecology. For example, glacial ice older than about 60,000 years gets too compressed by the glacier's weight and movement to provide good climate data. "It doesn't bring doubt that we have older ice, we just can't directly count it," says University of Copenhagen glacier expert Dorthe Dahl Jensen, a collaborator on Willerslev's latest research. Instead, climatologists have relied on models to argue that southern Greenland was free of ice--and open to plant growth--during the Eemian, or last interglacial period, some 130,000 to 116,000 years ago. The new results contradict that scenario: An ice-free Eemian in Greenland would have replaced the 450,000- to 800,000-year-old forest DNA Willerslev found in the bottom ice cores with younger plant and animal DNA. The survival of 450,000-year-old DNA suggests that the ice has been around much longer than previously thought. If southern Greenland remained ice-covered during the last interglacial period, it could mean global warming would have to get much worse before it completely melts away the Greenland ice sheet."

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sci;317/5834/36

"Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland"

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/317/5834/111

Stephen at October 8, 2007 6:33 PM

www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/antarctic_snowmelt.html

Stephen, how long ago was the beginning of the century? Considering that arctic ice has been decreasing since before the beginning of the century, it's not hard to imagine that we would be seeing this sort of thing now.

"Wait I know, local conditions that dont contradict AGW right?"

No but global warming can affect local conditions.

"Provide me the proof, albatros. The undeniable proof of AGW!"

There isn't enough space on this site to do that. You're just going to have to take a few courses in geography, geomorphology, geology, climate science, chemistry and physics to learn the "the undeniable proof of AGW."

Speaking of demanding undeniable truth, you aren't by chance a practicing Christian/Muslim/Jew are you?

Albatross, let me ask you, how do you attribute insignificant, miniscule changes in climate to man yet recognize the half dozen Ice Ages that have occurred were due to natural events?

alby:

Give the Christopher Hitchens gambit a rest, would you?

I'm still searching for scientific proof that one species can convert into another species.

Go back to your science fiction.

Liberals narcissism makes them easy targets of fear mongering from the weather ignoramuses. Leftists are such dupes; "There's a sucker born every minute."

"Hansen is one name that comes to mind that in my opinion is more worthy than Gore. "

So Alby, are you suggesting Hansen gets the prize for predicting global "cooling i.e. new ice age- in the 70's or his global warming scare of the present.

Just wondering, thats all.

Horny Toad

The environment is priority number one when there are conservatives in power in the white house (and to a lesser extent, here in Canada.) Ergo, Global Warming is the emergency of the day now and the big issue when Mulroney and Regan were in power was the rainforests and acid rain.

If Hillary is elected in '08 the US press will drop the environment instantaneously.

Here in Canada, the environment was last dropped from the face of the earth when Chrétien was elected. It crept up a small bit from over the boarder when Bush was elected but the Canadian press didn't start calls for hysteria until Harper came to power.

Apollyon at October 9, 2007 12:52 AM

If you look at the Milankovic cycle, are you aware that due to the earth’s present in obliquity and eccentricity that we should be slowly approaching an ice age? Instead we are getting warmer. Why do you suppose that is?

alby:

Because human beings cannot predict today's weather, never mind a more complex issue like climate change?

BTW, what's normal?

A convenient fraud now being exposed

A WORD of advice to the many teachers who have been scaring our children with screenings of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

Be aware that a judge this month instructed British teachers showing the film to tell their pupils that Gore makes at least 11 false or unsupported claims.
[...]

Here are those 11 corrections to Gore's film - and many will be familiar to readers of this column:

Gore presents Mt Kilimanjaro's melting snows as proof of global warming. In fact, the snows are vanishing thanks to local factors, including deforestation.

Gore suggests Antarctica's ice cover is melting. Most studies says it is increasing or stable.

Gore shows scary graphics of cities drowning in seas that rise 7m, causing millions of refugees. But the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says the seas will rise at worst by 59cm this century.

Gore uses images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests it was caused by global warming. The Government's expert in this case admitted such one-off events can't be blamed on warming.

Gore suggests ice-core evidence shows rising CO2 caused temperature rises, which ended the past seven ice ages. In fact, the CO2 rises followed temperature rises by 800 to 2000 years.

Gore claims global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, causing an ice age in Europe. Recent studies deny it.

Gore blames global warming for species losses and coral reef bleaching. The Government couldn't show evidence to back this claim.

Gore claims a study showed polar bears had drowned because of vanishing ice. The study actually said just four polar bears drowned, and only because of a bad storm.

Gore suggests Greenland's ice could melt, causing a dangerous rise in sea levels. In fact, Greenland's ice won't melt for thousands of years.

Gore shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert agreed this was not the case.

Gore claims rising seas have forced people to flee Pacific islands to New Zealand. There is no record of any such warming-caused evacuation.

I don't know why the court stopped at just 11. Hyperbole overload? But this must be enough to make rational viewers sceptical of all Gore's case. [...]

What madness took hold even of our scientists, that the CSIRO could claim of this deceitful film, "its scientific basis is very sound"?

Children, you are being told untruths to scare you. And shame on those who are party to this deceit. ...-
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22559777-5000117,00.html

"It's now". Pull the plug ... it's over... now ...-
P.S. Where is that save thing?
...-

Scientist: Emissions already beyond 'worst-case' scenario
By Meraiah Foley, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
[...]

Tim Flannery ...

"We are already at great risk of dangerous climate change. That's what these figures say. It's not next year or next decade. It's now."
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/2007/10/09/4561963-ap.html

I noticed on the Climate Audit site there is a furious debate going about whether data is available or not. For something that is 'settled' or 'debate over' there are quite a few PHDs on both sides.

Speaking of demanding undeniable truth, you aren't by chance a practicing Christian/Muslim/Jew are you? - albatros
bahahaha - nice try!
NO.
You're just going to have to take a few courses in geography, geomorphology, geology, climate science, chemistry and physics to learn the "the undeniable proof of AGW."
A few courses and i'll have the undeniable proof eh?
So why are men with lifelong careers in science and PhD's in the field still unsure about the causes?
Are they "stupid" or "morons" in your eyes too? Are you more educated in these matters than they are?

How come we never hear anything about antarctica which is getting colder how come NASA is only talking about the arctic?

spurwing plover at October 10, 2007 12:00 PM

Yes we do
www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/antarctic_snowmelt.html