Shhhh: Antarctic ice at highest levels since 1979
posted at 6:03 pm on September 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
It’s at the lowest level since 1979 at the North Pole, where it’s summer, but at the South Pole it’s more wintery than a global-warming winter should be.
While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting, which explains the increase in total extent. This dichotomy was shown in this World Climate Report blog posted recently with a similar tale told in this paper by Ohio State Researcher David Bromwich, who agreed “It’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now”.
The winter temperatures in Antarctica are steadily declining, too. The significance of all this is way above my pay grade but logically it would seem to be a question of whether ice melting at one pole during the summer is dumping more water into the ocean than winter at the other pole can take out. The fact that it’s colder than usual in the south is good news but whether it’s enough to keep the total amount of ice on earth in equilibrium as summer in the north gets hotter, I don’t know. Anyone schooled in this and care to comment?
If you’re wondering why you haven’t heard about this before, you really shouldn’t.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
We’re all gonna die! It’s getting colder at the South Pole.
And this destroys my life in Canada — how?
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Once again, Marc Morano at the office of Senator Inhofe was on this Friday.
I have no idea what any of it means, and I’m not afraid to say it. So why do nitwit celebutards like Gore and Laurie “I swallowed my way to $100 million” David think they know what it means?
Jaibones on September 15, 2007 at 6:12 PM
From a USA Today article (sorry, no pie charts..)
So that leaves 10% of the worlds ice for the Arctic, except you have to take away all the Glaciers.
trubble on September 15, 2007 at 6:16 PM
I don’t know about any of that, but I was watching a National Geographic program about 2 years ago where they were in northern Canada. They were in a certain body (some sort of strait, or passage) of water, but I don’t remember the name.
Anyway, the part that interested me was the claim that because of the extent of the ice melt, this was the first time that this particular passage had been open since 1847.
To me, that points to natural temperature fluctuations.
jaime on September 15, 2007 at 6:18 PM
Don’t worry, AP. The Gorebots will find a way to claim that global warming caused colder temperatures all the way down there. To Al’s true believers, all climate change or unusual weather is the result of man-made global warming, and nothing is evidence to the contrary.
As for a real scientific explanation, I’m as clueless as you.
Bigfoot on September 15, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Romeos theroy….
One of the main indicators of “global” warming is based on the changes in temperature (deltas) of various weather stations throught out the world.
Two points..
First, as the Northern Hemispheres population grew, many more of these stations are in Urban environments. They are often poorly placed, and are also subject to the Heat island effect that surrounds cities.
Second, There are also just plain more stations in the Northern Hemisphere….
So, the Norths data is not only flawed, but also overrepresented in the data set.
I think the Northrn hemisphere is probably warming a bit… while the South is cooling…
We live in a closed system here folks… sun in… some energy sent into space… but the core of the earth is molten and also adds heat to the mix… the idea that we are changing things is hubris.
Romeo13 on September 15, 2007 at 6:23 PM
90% of the world’s ice is in Antarctica, and it’s growing?
How can that be?
This is very inconvenient, if true.
NellE on September 15, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Not necessarily, jaime.
Maybe the world came to a halt and everyone started dying in 1847.
Christoph on September 15, 2007 at 6:24 PM
Northwest Passage. It’s open now, ice free. Here’s the story.
JiangxiDad on September 15, 2007 at 6:25 PM
global warming. pwn3d.
lorien1973 on September 15, 2007 at 6:25 PM
Not to mention the fact that melting Arctic ice (sea-bound) does nothing to sea levels and growing Antarctic ice (land-bound) should lower sea levels.
viking999 on September 15, 2007 at 6:28 PM
Brrr should probably be Grrr, in honor of Gore.
If I wouldn’t like penguins so much, having watched the miracle of them returning from the ocean at night, outside of Melbourne (both happy, and sad for the chicks who’s parents were devoured by seals, and who won’t be fed by the rangers), I’d say that Gore looks like one in that front picture.
Always count on the AP and the other media to be totally objective. I sent that link to my European enviro-buddies (pro and con on global warming) already. Some of this will now be debated in schools there, thanks to HA.
Entelechy on September 15, 2007 at 6:28 PM
But… but… global warming…!
ZK on September 15, 2007 at 6:33 PM
Well, as long as the upcoming ski season looks good, that’s all I need…
Now, do I hire a private jet to fly me out there? Take my SUV? Or carpool with manbearpig?
JetBoy on September 15, 2007 at 6:36 PM
The first casualty of warm is the truth.
fogw on September 15, 2007 at 6:40 PM
Golly. One might surmise that this inhabitable blue rock is a giant cyclic terrarium delicately interwoven into a great cosmic puzzle in which thousands of symbiotic processes have been uniquely interacting with one another for millions of years with a resulting ebb & flow of natural phenomena.
Naaaaah.
locomotivebreath1901 on September 15, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Heh heh heh looks like a good time to throw this link out……
Ice age now
These guys pretty much bust The Goreacle’s chops.
doriangrey on September 15, 2007 at 6:43 PM
How would the UN and Dem’s re-distribute your money and expand gov’t if what you say is true? Science in the service of politics.
JiangxiDad on September 15, 2007 at 6:46 PM
Great picture… but which one is Al Gore?
petefrt on September 15, 2007 at 6:53 PM
I want to give a detailed explanation given my extensive scientific background.
Back in 1948 The whole world farted at the same exact time.
Thank you.
GoodBoy on September 15, 2007 at 6:54 PM
Even if the world is warming to a 1/2 degree Celsius (or some such insignificant number) over the next decade, the world would be FAR better off spending the trillions it would cost to make Al Gore and the other anti-capitalists feel better, on simply dealing with an ever-so slightly warmer environment.
I don’t buy any of it.
edgehead on September 15, 2007 at 7:11 PM
Global Cooling! Run for the hills!
SoulGlo on September 15, 2007 at 7:22 PM
In that screencap, is Algore excoriating his GW troops for not being convincing enough?
eeyore on September 15, 2007 at 7:37 PM
It’s been the lead story on AOL for several hours now
BadgerHawk on September 15, 2007 at 7:49 PM
The North Pole, of couse.
BadgerHawk on September 15, 2007 at 7:50 PM
I think the summer of 2007 did in all the global warming supporters around here. Last winter Gore spoke at OU and claimed that Oklahoma was going to be a barren wasteland due to drought and heat within 10 years and then the rains came and it rained and rained and rained all summer with some of the coolest temperatures we’ve seen in 100 years. Now even our meteorologists work at debunking Gore every chance they get.
As for the screencap ya need to photoshop in Gore belching fire and roasting the poor penguins.
Buzzy on September 15, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Obviously the Antarctic represents the super rich multinational corporations of the military-industrial complex, and the Arctic represents the poor downtrodden masses victimized by Bushitlerburton, Inc. The only answer is a massive redistribution of ice to alleviate the suffering. Overseen by the Dems, naturally.
infidel4life on September 15, 2007 at 7:55 PM
Someone must be buying too many carbon offsets.
Wade on September 15, 2007 at 8:13 PM
No doubt Gore’s great-great-grand-dad tried to sell carbon offsets to the railroads.
I thought the approved explanation of the increasing ice levels in the Antartic is because warmer weater made more precipitation that froze. If temperatures down there are decreasing while the ice is increasing, someone needs to pull another theory out if their a$$ before the mouth-breathers think that the climate debate is still going on.
pedestrian on September 15, 2007 at 8:18 PM
I have heard somthing similiar befor. A year or so ago a group of canadians went to the north pole to check the ice depth, they expected it do be declining. They found the ice was far thicker than they had thought, but did the right thing and reported the truth. Maybe a good searcher can find this story out of Canada. Try 12 to 18 months ago.
allrsn on September 15, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Also, I have several charts showing global warming and cooling over the last many thousands of years, if you want them ap let me know, I will email them to you and you can post them.
allrsn on September 15, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Here is the same article from Daily Tech, and here is a bigger chart of the sea ice. This is a 6 month cycle between High and Low, so you can expect the MSM to report low Antarctic Ice Levels in about six months, when it fits their agenda.
Maxx on September 15, 2007 at 8:37 PM
I think that is a different artical. But the chart only shows a few years the charts I have cover 10’s of thousands of years based on data taken form world wide core sample over the last 100 years. They clearly show we are in a normal upswing from the last normal low temperature temperature. The planent has a very normal and repetitive temperature cycle.
allrsn on September 15, 2007 at 8:48 PM
wow that just shows how poor a typist I am.
“article”
“from”
“samples”
“temperature”“planet”
“repative” still wrong maybe?
allrsn on September 15, 2007 at 8:53 PM
Those carbon offsets are starting to pay dividends. Guess the Goracle can drop the temp a few degrees and the old homestead and celebrate.
SPIFF1669 on September 15, 2007 at 9:00 PM
Ice in equilibrium ? Has it ever been ? Is it now ? How is that defined ? But more importantly… who cares if the ice is in equilibrium ?
Maxx on September 15, 2007 at 9:11 PM
Great. Now I am going to have to cancel my vacation to the Alien vs. Predator pyramid. Too cold.
Stormy70 on September 15, 2007 at 9:45 PM
I’m not “schooled” in it, but I’ll tell you one thing you’re slightly overlooking (and virtually no one ever thinks about, and certainly the “scientists” don’t like to remind people of it). It’s simply 7th grade science class “water displacement”>
Everyone, go get a glass from your kitchen, put an ice cube in, and fill it up to the very top with water… to the point it’s almost overflowing. Now, let the ice melt, and see if it overflows. Of course it won’t.
Same goes for much of the ice melting in the Arctic, because it’s not on land. I’m not saying there isn’t ice on land, like Greenland for example (of course studies have now shown that it’s been NATURALLY melting there for over 100 years, so “man made global warming” arguments based on Greenland’s glaciers melting are to be flushed down the toilet now too. Wondering why you never heard about that study? You shouldn’t be surprised. I could give you dozens more that debunk global warming, it’s f-ing ridiculous. It’s so sad that as a result of the state of our extreme leftist media, we are still talking about “global warming”. We shouldn’t even be familiar with that term, it should have been tossed a LONG time ago. Lucky for them, in a decade or so, when the cool trend begins, the new generation will hear about it, and won’t hear about “global warming”, and when some uppity kid does bring it up, he’ll be told “well we just have better data now”. It never ends.)
RightWinged on September 15, 2007 at 9:46 PM
as a Creationist and Christian i believe the earth is basically 7 thousand years old. even in this small number of years, compared to evilutions theory, how many times have records such as this been taken ? my point being, how do we really truly know this hasnt been going on in cycle for the past 7 thousand years ? were just now getting to experience it thanks to innovations and human advancements.
palefaced on September 15, 2007 at 9:46 PM
I’m not sure if you are asking wrt ocean elevations, Allah, but for the most part (excluding Greenland ice), arctic ice is already in the water, thus it’s contribution to water surface elevation is already accounted for in the same way that an ice cube in a glass filled to the brim with water doesn’t overflow when the cube melts.
On the other hand a large portion of the antarctic is continent (about 50% at the height of the winter ice formation) and so any addition to glacier there would take from the world water levels because it is forming on land and above water surface elevation. The other 50%, i.e., antarctic ice formed along the coast of the continent during winter, would be in water and not affect ocean levels — ice cube in drink again. According to a National Geographic page (which I closed before I got the url), the coastal ice formation grows to more than the continent size itself thus more than doubling the size of “Antarctica”.
What proportions and the affect on ocean levels from continental glacial formation on continental Antarctica is now above my pay grade but it would seem to me to be some amount of reduction, though possibly insignificant in the scheme of things and, again, ignoring whatever happens to Greenland annually.
Dusty on September 15, 2007 at 9:49 PM
RightWinged on September 15, 2007 at 9:46 PM
agreed. you can easily google front page newspapers and magazines from 30 years ago when it was a new ice age coming. it simply wont end. it will always be somthing.
palefaced on September 15, 2007 at 9:50 PM
See! It’s Global Climate Change! Give me MONEY! ~Al Gore.
BKennedy on September 15, 2007 at 9:54 PM
Right you are! Gorebots have been making that claim for several years. I recall thinking the first time I heard it, 30 years ago such a statement would have gotten you laughed out of town.
oldleprechaun on September 15, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Oi Vey. Helen Thomas is older than that.
jihadwatcher on September 15, 2007 at 10:36 PM
Wiki says:
salmonczar on September 15, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Man made global warming is as much a religion as atheism. Just like communism. And Socialism. And Feminism. They are all religions. The more they deny it, the more the evidence rolls in. It takes an abject belief that there is no god to believe in Aitheism. It takes a belief that Communism, and/or Socialism, would work, if the right people were in charge. It takes a belief that feminism is manly. And that man can benefit from it. Or that man is inherently evil. It can be looked at either way, or in all ways according to Feminism, fascism, Communism, Socialism, and Atheism. All of those belief systems are a defacto religion based on the need to believe they are true, without any real basis of fact to back any of them up. The same is true for Man Made Global Warming. They all fall in the same category. Only some have more backing on real life consequences than others, and Christianity, along with Judaism, seem to me to be the LEAST damaging and most tolerant of them all.
MalkinFan on September 16, 2007 at 12:15 AM
I wait for someone to prove me wrong
MalkinFan on September 16, 2007 at 12:17 AM
MalkinFan on September 16, 2007 at 12:17 AM
I’m not sure what you imagine a “proof” might look like… you just sort of threw out this grand, abstract idea a called for a “proof” of its incorrectness. Whatever.
However, it is simply a physical necessity that mankind is having SOME effect on climate due to CO2 emissions. The questions are how much is due to mankind, how much is natural, can we do anything about it, and do we want to (will climate change be a bad thing?).
You, yourself, are speaking in the sort of faith-based absolutes you are talking about.
DaveS on September 16, 2007 at 1:12 AM
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=10%2C000-year+average+temperature&btnG=Google+Search
Wake me when we reach average temperature. On second thought, wake me when we go above average temperature.
I love how all the lying POS desperate permanent grad students start their charts in 1850 – the end of the Little Ice Age.
Merovign on September 16, 2007 at 1:19 AM
DaveS you already admitted that CO2 LAGS the increase in temperature over in the thread where Michelle interviews Inhofe (see below).
CO2 is not the cause of the increased temperature, it is the RESULT.
Maxx on September 16, 2007 at 1:49 AM
Maxx…
We’ve already been over this in the other thread. If you don’t understand the fallacy you keep pushing there, and if you are going to disregard everything we’ve said before this point except for those little snippets that you perceive as supportive of your mindless talking points, then do not address me. Ever. If you are ever capable of carrying on an intelligent, rational dialog, maybe I’ll rethink this, but right now you are a waste of time for anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of the topic.
And if anyone is wondering what Maxx is babbling about, it’s the Inhofe thread. Maxx is an idiot. You should pretty much disregard anything he says, since he will only disregard anything you say, and will start recycling talking points (like the CO2 lags blah blah) after the science has already been explained to him the first time he brought it up (then the second, etc.). He just conveniently “forgets” that you’ve already been over it, and pulls it back out after you’ve disposed of the 5th or 6th talking point in his cycle.
DaveS on September 16, 2007 at 2:14 AM
Hotair needs an “Ignore” filter for the comments.
DaveS on September 16, 2007 at 2:15 AM
DaveS on September 16, 2007 at 2:14 AM
If you don’t want me to address you then don’t inject arguments into the thread where you have already admitted your error. You can be sure I will always point it out.
Maxx on September 16, 2007 at 2:34 AM
AP-
You need to photoshop an icicle on Al G.’s beak.
To show the effects of PGC [Paradoxical Global Cooling].
Happy Feet Meet Frozen Nose.
profitsbeard on September 16, 2007 at 3:02 AM
Al Gore’s mouth, the source of much of the world’s hot air is open though, so I imagine the icicle melted.
BKennedy on September 16, 2007 at 5:51 AM
CO2 does not and can not cause any warming. It is an insignificant greenhouse gas, next to water vapor, it constitutes a minute fraction of the air, and mankind produces only a tiny fraction of that.
The CO2 argument is political.
jihadwatcher on September 16, 2007 at 7:13 AM
If you want a foolproof conservative belief system…
The opposite of everything Gore believes is a good start.
Zach on September 16, 2007 at 7:36 AM
But, but, but does this mean that Big Al could be wrong and his movie may have had erroneous information contained therein?
Who’d a thunk it!
lib_not on September 16, 2007 at 8:27 AM
Actually, I did hear about this before. I just picked up Michael Crichton’s State of Fear while waiting around at the airport this week, and in it, he makes mention of this trend. Since State of Fear is a work of fiction, I was taking the science references in it with a grain of salt.
flipflop on September 16, 2007 at 9:10 AM
Actually, flipflop, even though the book is fiction, take the science very seriously. I have looked up quite a few of the references, and they are dead on and peer reviewed.
I do not mean that as criticism of you, BTW, just that the background is correct, and why liberals leave such nasty comments at Amazon and have their standard hissy fits over his books.
William Teach on September 16, 2007 at 10:12 AM
Well you know, the North & South Pole’s can be flip-floppers too!
moonsbreath on September 16, 2007 at 11:17 AM
Until the US gets serious about this War on earthly warmth, we will continue to suffer setbacks such as this.
What needs to be done is a major strike against the biggest carbon emitters on the planet… volcanoes.
I propose strategic nuclear strikes on 67 major ACTIVE volcanoes in the next few days.
Termites, another major carbon spewer,(who by the way, outnumber humans and could take over if ever organized) must be put in check as well, napalm hits on major mounds is in order.
We MUST show the Earth who is in charge.
When the ice sheet receded from Kentucky, I’ll admit I was for global warming. But thanks to the Allah Goracle I have felt the heat altered my shoeprints.
We must learn the lessons of our caveman brothers (and cave woman sisters), their lackadasical approach to stopping Pangea from breaking apart was archaic and halfhearted.
We run this planet, it is about time the Earth started spinning to a different tune.
christophercube on September 16, 2007 at 12:33 PM
Co2 is about 300ppm naturally. (You can buy a cheep test kit for under 20$ at any hydroponics shop.)
Most plants thrive with a level of 1400-1900 ppm.
Al Gore releases about 500ppm every time he goes on a rant.
If you bury Al Gore, Howard Dean and Rosie to their neck in your field of crops, your crops will thrive off the higher co2 levels they emit from their every flapping pie holes. And probably your crops would also enjoy the nitrogen bump from the pure manure coming out of all three.
Mojack420 on September 16, 2007 at 12:42 PM
There is no greater delicacy for the Global Warming-skeptic-skeptic than the contributions of a creationist. I’ve actually been searching for this for a long time. Now, if I can find the take of an alchemist on Global Warming.
I do feel slightly guilty that I don’t make more serious arguments on this issue rather being glib. I do usually try to contribute something worthwhile. It’s just that as a right-wing environmentalist, I don’t really have that strong opinion on global warming. I do think the environmental movement–which is controlled by leftists–has made a huge mistake bring us down the path on this issue on global warming while ignoring other important issues like Shamnesty. I quit the Sierra Club over its inability to come out in opposition to Shamensty. Environmentalists should focus on habitat elimination due to human overpopulation, since Global Warming, if true, is but a sideshow.
& I do suspect the right is about why this sideshow has become The Issue. Global warming provides the left yet another chance to put down rich white people–as obviously any person who owns an SUV is white and wealthy. (When my brother argued with a prominent Portland, OR environmentalist about illegal immigration, the environmentalist fantasized Mexicans as living in poverty. My brother replied that the illegal Mexican he sees are driving SUV’s, but the environmentalist denied what can be observed in any parking lot.)
thuja on September 16, 2007 at 4:09 PM
May I recommend this? It’s from a pretty informative website called Friends of Science. There’s wild stuff all over it, including their references page. (Where you’ll find this DeFreitas .pdf if the link doesn’t work.)
tree hugging sister on September 16, 2007 at 7:12 PM
To determine CO2’s role as significant or insignificant in the warming process, we should disregard politician like Al Gore and look to what scientists have said:
You can view each of these scientists making the above statements HERE.
And finally according to Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen work, we see that it is sunspot activity that is overwhelmingly responsible for the earth’s major changes in temperature:
Maxx on September 16, 2007 at 7:32 PM
What most people don’t realize is that CO2 only accounts for 0.03% of the atmosphere, and a tiny percentage of greenhouse gases, but it accounts for up to 25% of the forcing. In otherwords, the tiny trace gas is responsible for up to 1/4th of the “greenhouse effect”.
So it is irrelevant that it is tiny compared to water vapor. Stop using that talking point. It is a meaningless non-sequitur.
Some people, I think, believe that repeating a discredited talking point over and over (see Maxx, above) somehow counts as a “win” if you just say it enough times that the other side of the “debate” decides they are talking to an idiot and goes home. In reality, all it does is make thost people look like morons to people who actually have at least a vague understanding of the science.
DaveS on September 16, 2007 at 7:45 PM
I doubt this very seriously and I don’t know what your source is. You are saying that for a given volume of air that .03% of that air which is CO2… (.038% according to WIKI – the number I will use), could trap 25% of the total heat of that given volume.
Think of it, when you invert .038% which is .00038, the result is 2,631 to 1. I do not believe that 1 part of 2,631 parts of any kind of gas, or any substance known to man has the ability to absorb heat at such an incredible rate as to be responsible for 25% of the overall heat of that volume.
What’s your source ?
Maxx on September 15, 2007 at 3:01 AM
Maxx on September 16, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Please explain this concept of “forcing” that none of these skeptical scientists have yet discovered.
jihadwatcher on September 16, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Any person who is sufficiently informed to discuss this topic knows what a forcing is. The converse is also true… if a person doesn’t know what a forcing is then that person is not sufficiently informed to discuss this topic.
After doing a quick Google search for you (which you would have done if you weren’t intellectually lazy), I found a page that seems to do a good job of explaining it.
And where do you get off smearing the skeptic scientists like that? They are smart people, and certainly understand the basics of the climate and the Earth’s energy system. That may be one of the most retarded things I’ve heard yet in these threads, and that says a lot with Maxx involved.
I’ll actually respond to Maxx on this one, even though I’ve already responded to this EXACT SAME POINT twice in the other thread. Maybe a different analogy will sink in better…
Throw 2631 marbles into a box. Put a bright light in the center of one of them. How much of the light in that box is due to the 1 marble? With that example in mind, how does your comment make any sense?
Also, I said, “as much as 25%”. It is much more likely to lie in the middle of the error range, probably 12-18%.
DaveS on September 16, 2007 at 9:43 PM
So in other words you don’t have a source… this is just the way it works according to DaveS. I’m glad to see you understand it so well that you can just make it up as you go.
Maxx on September 16, 2007 at 9:59 PM
“Forcing” is what Liberals do when an idea is so crazy and illogical that it is nearly impossible to describe it out loud with a straight face.
(not possible for Conservatives, who possess a genuine sense of humor)
landlines on September 16, 2007 at 10:13 PM
Right…that was my point. I hadn’t been taking the research references in the book seriously simply because it’s a work of fiction. But apparently, the data Crichton refers to is well sourced, and there are extensive footnotes in the book citing the research sources.
flipflop on September 16, 2007 at 10:19 PM
If you can’t keep the debate civil, I suggest you take it over to Kos. These meltdowns combined with ad hominem attacks add nothing to the debate. I can also tell you the administrators will only tolerate so much of it.
Maxx on September 16, 2007 at 10:26 PM
I suspect that you will be unable to understand any of it, but here is the source you asked for (PDF warning).
I will reiterate… HotAir needs an ignore filter. This has nothing to do with “civility”… it has to do with your idiocy. You don’t understand what I’m talking about, so you accuse me of “making it up as I go.” You have shown an absolute inability to grasp a single thing that is explained to you, repeatedly ignore explanations you don’t like, and often even act as though nobody ever even answered your questions so that you can keep recycling mindless, childish, uber-partisan talking points.
If the admins see fit to ban anyone–and I am PRAYING that they do–it will be you. I doubt they like people who act like 10 year olds giving the site a bad name. If they look at this thread and at the Inhofe thread, it will be pretty clear who the degenerate is. If I were a bit more cynical, I would suspect that some of the lefties sent you over here to make everyone look like scientifically illiterate fools.
DaveS on September 17, 2007 at 12:22 AM
You’re interested in table 3 in that PDF.
DaveS on September 17, 2007 at 12:27 AM
DaveS on September 17, 2007 at 12:27 AM
OK… that’s better, even though you are still in somewhat of a snit.. are you not ? In any case, I see the chart and see that the x-axis is wavelength in microns… that’s all well and good. Would you be kind enough to explain to dumb old me what the y-axis represents ?
Also, it appears that water is the blue line and CO2 is the red line… is that correct ?
Maxx on September 17, 2007 at 1:33 AM
From this article (emphasis theirs):
“Hence, in this best explanation yet for the impressive correlation of CO2 and air temperature over glacial-interglacial cycles, atmospheric CO2 variations are the result of temperature variations and not vice versa, which is what the ice core data also tell us about this phenomenon. Once again, therefore, we have another demonstration of the fact that it is changes in air temperature that drive changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration and not the reverse phenomenon, which figures so highly in GCM predictions of continued global warming as a result of the rising CO2 content of earth’s atmosphere.”
Check out CO2Science.org. Fun for the whole family! It’ll leave you with a warm feeling inside :-)
Ordinary1 on September 17, 2007 at 8:58 AM
Solar variability, fluctuations in the Earth’s precession angle at uncommon planetary alignments throughout our orbit, measurable decreases in the terrestrial magnetic flux, and atmospheric/tropospheric/oceanic pressure patterns all add up to one thing: Nobody can predict tomorrow’s weather with absolute certainty.
Increases in CO2 means more food for plant life, a net balancing factor for the environment, rather than a harbinger of doom. That God made it that way explains why the CO2 rises as an after-effect of increases in global mean temperature, as a damper to limit such increases.
And don’t you love how car ads nowadays tout how little CO2 is emitted by this or that vehicle? Cars have never emitted more than trace amounts of CO2, it’s CO that’s the carbon-based pollutant of automobile exhaust. It’s like saying that bottled spring water is low in caffeine. If you believe the consumer is dumb enough to buy your product because of such a pointless claim, then go for it, right?
Freelancer on September 17, 2007 at 9:13 AM
Ordinary1 on September 17, 2007 at 8:58 AM
Nobody is arguing with that… long cyclical rises in temperature certainly release sequestered CO2 and raise CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. We are talking about a 30-50% rise in CO2 over 50-100 years, not over a millennium, and the rise is unquestionably due to the combustion of fossil fuels. (The changing isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 tells us this.)
In other words, the “CO2 lags temperature” argument is true in a particular context, but it doesn’t apply here… it is a red herring.
Freelancer on September 17, 2007 at 9:13 AM:
The act of combusting a single gallon of unleaded gasoline releases about 30 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere (yes, I’m aware that this is more than the weight of the gasoline… that’s how it works).
DaveS on September 17, 2007 at 9:38 AM
Maxx on September 17, 2007 at 1:33 AM
Look at Table 3, not Figure 3.
But in the one you looked at the y-axis is labeled Watts per square meter per micron, which reduces to Watts per millionth of a cubic meter.
DaveS on September 17, 2007 at 9:45 AM
Really? I don’t think it’s a red herring at all. It’s kinda the point. If CO2 levels have been MUCH higher than they are today before there were SUV’s, then doesn’t it make sense that the small small small fraction of CO2 that man is responsible for really is having ZERO affect?! From this article:
“Over the bulk of the record, earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentration fluctuates between values that are two to four times greater than that of today at a dominant period on the order of 100 million years. For the last 175 million years, however, there has been a rather steady long-term decline in the air’s CO2 content.”
and then the conclusion
“Hence, not only is there no proof for the climate-alarmist contention that higher CO2 concentrations tend to warm the planet, there is evidence in this study to suggest that just the opposite may be true.”
Ordinary1 on September 17, 2007 at 10:28 AM
That conclusion is misguided, or at least a simplification that unnecessarily confuses things. There is no question that higher CO2 levels will contribute to warming…. even skeptics don’t contest that. What they contest is the alarmist predictions of the “enhanced greenhouse” feedback cycle, meaning that CO2 will cause a rise, which will trigger H20 and even more CO2 feedbacks, which will cause more warming, wash, rinse, repeat.
The fact that CO2 levels have been much higher doesn’t suggest that CO2 doesn’t absorb longwave radiation and result in warming–that is indisputable and undisputed–but it does suggest that the catastrophic runaway warming theory may be baseless.
DaveS on September 17, 2007 at 10:35 AM
Actually the article I have linked, and many others on CO2Science.org do contest that. Or at least show that temperatures can rise while CO2 levels drop and vice versa. There are MANY more articles on the site worth checking out. If the conclusion seems to be oversimplified, read the site and will see LOTS of evidence to back their claims.
I am not a scientist, but I am a thinker(sorry, wrong show). I am not a scientist, but it’s clear to me that we are WAY within the parameters of what is “normal” for our planet.Al and Company are just trying to separate us from our $$ and freedom and hand it over to the U.N. and socialist thinking. That’s WAY more dangerous than any pseudo global warming.
Ordinary1 on September 17, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Agreed! I’m heading to work and don’t comment while I’m on the clock, so I’ll check the thread later. Have a good one!
Ordinary1 on September 17, 2007 at 10:56 AM
I don’t disagree with those points. I just disagree with anyone who says that man is having no effect. I agree that its being overblown and exploited to push an anti-capitalist agenda.
DaveS on September 17, 2007 at 11:10 AM
Well, yeah. That idea isn’t incompatible with anthropogenic warming.
DaveS on September 17, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Comment pages: