Lead story on the CBC National tonight!
We have news from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). They say: The melt is over. And we’ve added 9.4% ice coverage from this time last year. Though it appears NSIDC is attempting to downplay this in their web page announcement today, one can safely say that despite irrational predictions seen earlier this year, we didn’t reach an “ice free north pole” nor a new record low for sea ice extent.
Oh, wait….
But do be sure to send the item to every warmist-mongering journo you can think of, just to twist the ice pick a little.
I seem to remember a different thread about the artic where, IIRC, John Cross (might have been another warmer though) was postulating that the melt would be much greater than last year. I think the NSIDC was also discredited for some of their fancy graph work that did not reflect reality but supported their agenda. You can see from reading their material that they are not disinterested scientists reporting the facts but are AGW supporters blowing the trumpet of doom.
One fallout of all this is the loss of credibility for scientists and those, like John Cross, who attempt to use skewed science to support their theory. I am afraid that Mr. Cross, while polite, is wrong. His statement that;
1) We are responsible for all the current rise in CO2.
proves that he is willing to make totally off the wall statements and expect you to accept them as true. Do not volcanoes give off CO2, do not termites and other natural processes? I will agree that CO2 has increased while temperature has cooled since 1998, how does this support his models? When you postulate a theory and reality doesn’t match up then your theory is wrong, don’t try and change reality.
Actually Bob, if global warming was real, if the people proclaiming the danger actually believed, I would expect the private jets and buses to be parked and moth balled. Instead of flying to Bali to discuss it, they would have teleconferences and video conferences; no glamorous jet-setting, just dialing the phones.
The point has been made before, that if Gore actually wanted us to believe him, he should act like he believed it himself.
One of the lowest ice extents of all time? I have met a lot of young earthers in my time, but all time being since 1979 is just not believable. Usually people peg it at a few thousand years old at the very least….
“The 2008 ice field is still one of the lowest of all time.”
No,no,no, no, no.
In the last forty years, since they have had satellite coverage.
There are numerous written records from the past of summers where there was less ice than the last two years.
DaninVan: Do what I do; just scroll past anything posted by “New” or “Food-Media” or any of the other handles he goes by. A waste of time to read it.
I keep hearing reports that the arctic passage is open. Can anyone give me the name of a ship that has sailed trhough the northwest passage from the Altlantic ocean to the Pacific Ocean recently with all the arctic ice gone.. Haven’t seen any reports. In 1970-71 the USS Mahattnan (super Ice Breaker)came through Resolute Bay and made it almost to the Pacific but had to turn back.
I used to work in the Arctic in 1970-71 and was staioned at Resolute Bay. I was also called into Grise Fjord (look it up on a map) because the local town was in jeopardy of losing their years supply of frozen food because of a mal function in their refrigeration plant.
The point is that the supply ships (Fuel, food, etc.)that supply Grise Fjord and Resolute always deliver their cargoes in late August or Early September. The Northwest passage was clear of ice then and is still today during the same period during the year.
Change of water to vapor to rain to weather change and all increase see level and people going endanger of loose their life of all change of weather and all factory and all heat affect environment
that fact is nothing you agree or disagree with you will see from weather news every day or at least 3 times per year in USA espeicaly in far east and in India flood of water and all earthequick now change of earth from all view of environmental change is or may come from human activities ornot necessary we can blame it to human’s fault
taht is reason scientist can not predict it all the time but in so many times they can sayit but some times it is too late and cause so many life and house wasted
my point is can be change regarding that ice and increase water to use or transfer tahn water to other places or use as resource not as delema or change shape of water to ice with equioemeht or let schients create the powder can spray it and increase water temp lower as bomb drop can increase temp higher or made cannelt to transfer to other land in used of peopel or
as we know Canda sell so many water in poor or counreis with salt bad water in middle east and Africa
sometimes the direction of all problms need more engineering and busiens people to help it fix or at least minimize it still need funding for do that research I am not know more details of it
—
hay yo soccermom
again you I do not know how to get rid of some peopel I do not like to talk to them really!!
are you sure you are not hockymom Sara Palin
you even said ealeir in your post you also have down syndrom child
probably you change your sport from hocky to soccer
could you do not digest your thought for people let they say theri opion we heard so many of you before
This subject is about global warming not US and Canda election dear lady
I know I know Sarah Palin is hot what else!!
we do not talk about her or her hocky or soccer mom story
in second thought while I did test your freedom of talk and YOUR DEMOCRACY!!! ha ha ha
let I say what I am think is right and let people made decision you only can ignore me you do not need to say your opion over and over again
I can gurentee you do not have engineering degree
then let professional people talk
would ya? shut
“The science is in.”
Yeah, it’s just reality that’s screwing up.
Well, for the media and the greens, good news is a bummer.
JOHN CROSS
“””” The essence of the argument is that we are currently producing more CO2 than is showing up in the atmosphere. Thus there is no question that we are responsible for all of the increase. “””””””
john I don’t know what you do for a living, but I strongly suggest you may should it’s not something
that require critical thinking. You have posted this nonsense several times before. You appear not to understand the very question this statement raises that would bring int question the very fact you use to support. If some , or half as you have posted before, would be sufficient to raise CO2 content to it’s present level then why did the level not raise up to what one would have expected, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REST OF THE CO2????? And so if we had not produced this co2 would the temperature have dropped?????
Also when you state that there is a shift in the wave length, try thinking “BAND SHIFT”
TED
you are an other individual that needs a little help thinking. People on here would love the scientists to get on with the science, but they , the scientists want to politic (hansen, suzuki, mann, et tel), and the politicians want to rob us because of this nonsense, that is what we like to complain about. It has nothing to do with our opinion about ACTUAl science.
Two opposites, the short view and the loooooooooong. Both nutsy.
” The melt is over.
But do be sure to send the item to every warmist-mongering journo ”
I don’t believe that AGW studies suggest that there will be no seasons on earth. The “melt is over” because winter is coming.
” Phrase like “in a generation” and “in the last 30 years” make me laugh. Why are these time periods relevant to a geological feature that’s been around for hundreds of millions of years on a planet that’s over four billion years old? Because that’s the timescale that the warm-mongers find most conducive to their arguments ”
The expression “in a generation” should give you a clue. It’s because that is the timescale people live their lives in. AND it is the timescale during which temperatures are changing.
That CO2 levels were much higher during most periods of earth history is not really relevant.
Still CBC choose to make this story about being the “second largest melt” in history!
Kevin B: Polite conversation is always appreciated so thanks.
In regards to your comments about the sea-level rise of 8 cm and the temperature increase of 3C, I would ask you for a reference since I have not seen those numbers.
Your point about hurricanes becoming more destructive is interesting. Just last week there was a paper published in Nature titled The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones.
Regards,
John
Commsguy: No I did not make that remark and I would challenge anyone to post a reference to where I did say it or something like that! I would also note that I would not expect anyone to accept what I say as true without considering the logic and science on which I would base such a statement.
However in this case it is true that we are responsible for all the recent increase. If you look at the information that is available, there are two important items that we know fairly well. We have good information about the atmospheric CO2 level which shows that CO2 is increasing every year and we know how much fossil fuels we burn which means we can calculate the CO2 released. What these numbers show is that we are producing about twice as much CO2 as is showing up in the atmosphere. If you are still unsure of the reasoning, consider an analogy.
Consider the atmospheric CO2 content like a bank account to which several people have access. The people represent the different biological and geological processes such as volcanoes or termites that add and remove carbon from the atmosphere (or add and remove money from the bank account). We know what the level is at the start of the year (say it was $100) and we know what the level is at the end of the year (say it was $103). Through out the year we deposited $7. So, based on this the key question is what would the balance be if we did not deposit that $7?
Regards,
John
GYM: Please read my response above. In regards to where does the CO2 go, most of it is dissolved into sea water (which is backed up since the pH of seawater is decreasing).
I do not follow your argument “Also when you state that there is a shift in the wave length, try thinking “BAND SHIFT””. Is that a reference to pressure broadening?
Regards,
John
“Consider the atmospheric CO2 content like a bank account to which several people have access. The people represent the different biological and geological processes such as volcanoes or termites that add and remove carbon from the atmosphere (or add and remove money from the bank account). We know what the level is at the start of the year (say it was $100) and we know what the level is at the end of the year (say it was $103). Through out the year we deposited $7. So, based on this the key question is what would the balance be if we did not deposit that $7?”
I don’t buy it. One thing you don’t know is how much had been deposited and taken out by the other people (biological and geological processes). Say you added $7. What if one person had taken out $99 and another person deposited $95. Your contribution is much smaller in comparison. To say that it was solely responsible for the $3 increase is not entirely true.
What if the next year the account starts with $103, you only deposit $3, but at the end of the year the account is at $120?
Saying we are solely responsible or the main cause of increased CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere is incorrect, especially if we cannot accurately measure the other inputs and outputs. And to believe we have identified ALL of the inputs and outputs that affect our climate is quite naive.
Posted by: RL “I keep hearing reports that the arctic passage is open. Can anyone give me the name of a ship that has sailed trhough the northwest passage from the Altlantic ocean to the Pacific Ocean recently”
The Polarstern is making a complete circumnavigation —
http://www.awi.de/en/infrastructure/ships/polarstern/where_is_polarstern/
What ommag said.
To anyone who likes to argue with John Cross: please do so merely for entertainment value as there will be no actual scientific value to it.
JC likes to bring in all sorts of false arguements, specifically crafted to lead one to his point of view. When you poke holes in it, he merely responds that you have not fully understood what he has said and evades by focusing on a non-relevant topic. I do believe last time I tried he decided to focus on the definition of what an ad-hominem attack was!
So, its good entertainment but don’t get all worked up when you can’t get him to admit 2+2=4!
kevin. wrong today, wrong tomorrow.
John Cross can prove catastrophic global warming with rhetoric alone. No need to resort to messy logic and evidence, which, as we all know all too well, could lead to unhelpful and irresponsible results.
For co2 emission like Car emission test
why not made some kind of regulatary for factory and
I also all of us see air freshness spray for odor and some has bring O2 to air add too
why not made he same small spray of air to bring to bigger tanker when factor send so much odor and burnign to air they creat the spray can change that to oxygen in the air
there is easy formula to make CO2 to O2 by adding other substances
while they may bring extra cost that is job of scientis to create that enviorment change
by bring some business and business land development I think they can do more with alsaka in Cnasda all is ice ship cannot go there
if that ice get melted in some area like made teh road by melt tehy can use taht ground better for live and business I know they are hard now
by using solar tray to transfer of light relflex to area of north that increase heat even in some area by made up human made up heat in soem area if sun go in some area there is way to use sun go to somelook like miror and tranfer to other area to reach certain area which too cold to made it warm again I can not may explain what i mean except peopel in that area may get small clue of what I am talking about
North pole from land from water from human live and animla can change habitat of animal to live in diff temperater or identify all anijmla live there and get them and transfer them to new area under control of animal society if they like to dig for oil
take away CO2 need to spray subtance to change it from CO2 to O2 and take the odor out
all is costy and required so many testing
those cost can be returnable if use busienss peopel to help and made money out of that land too
in final those project of environement need group of businss peopel, land devlopemtn, resource and oil company engineering people who can send garbage to look like satelit able to go round earth or go roudn around mars for nuclear waste , transger garbae for dumping to otehr plants and so many thing teh all team can work with even forstery and chemical engineer to change emison of factory reduce or change with new machinery by engineering design machinery and solar system
this can be huge project and can made lots of lots of money and profit out of it as well but still costy to start in more efficient way
I am not upto date but they need to let people be creative for new idea pass to scinetis and find the best way to start with
for canda better to import scientist sorry hard to find it among Canadian are only few brain I saw In my life here bring Russion immigrant and egyptian or few from London -England are very smart people
Frenchie: If anyone is interested, they can read through the ad-hominem thread here!!
In essence, the definition came into it because you feel that if you think a person is a hypocrite that is sufficient reason to dismiss their work.
I feel that the work that someone presents should stand or fail on the strength of the science it puts forward, not because of what you think of them.
Regards,
John
Moptop: Actually I do not ascribe to the idea of catastrophic global warming and I would challenge you to find something I said that supports that idea.
In terms of the logic I present, which specific part of what I presented above do you not agree with.
regards,
John
John Cross: – thanks for proving my point, once you’ve staked a claim you just will never admit it’s wrong.
A true lefty by any definition!
BTW – I could be wrong (and I do admit its possible as I don’t read every climate thread here) but it would appear to me “that the work that someone presents should stand or fail on the strength of the science it puts forward” is clearly not on your mind when you talk about refuting even obvious frauds like Mann!
Frenchie: In fact, I have no personal stake in any position I present. I just go where the science leads me! Sometime I am right, sometimes I am wrong.
However I think that the majority of people do not need either you or me telling them what is correct or not. If they are interested they can read through the links and draw their own conclusions.
Regards,
John
soccermom; *sigh* you’re right. I try and give commenters the benefit of the doubt, and read their povs, but reading ‘new’ is like trying to run in chest deep water.
Well John, if you don’t think it is going to be catastrophic, what is the fuss about? I have wasted way too much time trying to get you to listen to and understand an argument to get sucked into that black hole again. You are dismissive of other points of view, and so sacrifice any power to persuade.
Moptop: Actually I do not ascribe [sic] to the idea of catastrophic global warming…
regards,
John
Posted by: John Cross at September 18, 2008 9:52 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You use big words John Cross, but come off as ignorant. I think, perhaps, you wanted to suggest that you don’t SUBSCRIBE to GW theories. If you can’t get your basic definitions right, how can I trust your arguments on a more complex topic like AGW?
CJ: Thanks, all corrections gratefully excepted (I know, but I was too good to pass up).
More to the point though is why you would trust my argument on anything – or for that matter someone else’s. I would encourage you to consider the arguments based on your background. Ask questions if you don’t understand and then make up your mind.
To that end, is there something in the science that I talk about above that you don’t agree with? If so what is it – and if not, then can I take it that you actually do agree with what I present?
Regards,
John
Opps, since my grammar is being scrutinized
CJ: Thanks, all corrections gratefully excepted (I know, but it was too good to pass up).
Global warming is a lie its being used by unscruplous persons to control our lives and most of the HOT AIR comes from AL GORE,GREENPEACE and the other green nazis under the green swastka