Climahysterics constantly scream for facts, proof, science!!!!!! from those of us who do not believe that the warming of the Earth was caused mostly or solely by Man*, yet, rely on proclamations by Al Gore and the bureaucrats at the United Nations for their information. How ’bout this?
Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.
Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.
The data is being reported by the University of Illinois’s Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.
How is that possible? If Man’s CO2 output, which the AGW Believers are certain is causing global warming, er, climate change, is so bad, and we are all doomed, and the planet is doomed by 2100 (a year they seem to be stuck on, probably because most people can’t conceive of what it will be like, and couldn’t care less, as they will be, you know, dead), how can the sea ice pull a stunt like this? Expect it to be blamed on weather in 3…2…1…..
* For most people, the debate is not over warming, which has happened, but the cause. AGW Gore Disciples believe that Man is at fault. Most rational people who consider all the evidence realize that the majority of the studies by AGW Believers ignore the Sun and water vapor, two of the main causes of climate change throughout the history of the Earth. Us Skeptics tend to consider that, yes, Man has a tiny part in the process, but, it is mostly natural. Climahysterics don’t. They want to believe. They don’t want to change their own lives to match their rhetoric, though. That is for everyone else.
Teach the surface area is the same, not the volume. Also when they talk about the North Pole being ice free, of course they mean during the summer. The summer ice area was at the 2nd smallest area since records were kept (~1970) So yes the ice does come back in the winter, BUT each summer (on average) it keeps getting smaller. “They do not want to change their own lives” well that is certainly not true in ALL cases is it ? Some are, some are not. However, I think that most Americans arre becoming more knowledgeable about their own carbon footprint. If only because of the economics involved have made it necessary.
Teach said: For most people, the debate is not over warming, which has happened, but the cause. AGW Gore Disciples believe that Man is at fault.
Teach, I’m glad you are finally citing some facts but I don’t understand how this article is relevant. You state yourself the dispute is not whether the earth is warming but why. Honestly I don’t think your position and mine are that far apart. We both accept the evidence that man has some effect we just differ on the degree of that effect. I have reached that conclusion based on my own judgment of the data and analysis of well-respected scientific organizations. I understand your frustration with those who exaggerate the evidence and the danger, but that is no reason to reject the truly scientific case for fossil fuel-induced global warming. You can make fun of Al Gore and call people hypocrites all you want but until you start seriously discussing the evidence you just sound like a “denier†not a true skeptic.
Most rational people who consider all the evidence realize that the majority of the studies by AGW Believers ignore the Sun and water vapor, two of the main causes of climate change throughout the history of the Earth.
Yes it could be the sun, but the studies that I have seen have considered it and the role of all the greenhouse gases. And they have concluded that neither our distance from the Sun nor the output from the Sun has changed significantly enough to account for the current warming trend. If you know of any other study, however, I’m open to it.
The greenhouse effect is real and a fundamental fact of atmospheric science. Enter any car parked in the sun and you can feel the oppressive heat. To cool the car all you have to do is open a window. Similarly, the surface of the Earth is receiving heat no only from the sun, but from IR emitted by the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases absorb the IR so the more greenhouse gases you have the more heat is absorbed. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was relatively constant from AD 800 until the late 1800s, at a level of 280 parts per million. In the last century it has shot up to 380 parts per million – an increase of 36%. As the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report concluded, the observed warming from 1957 to now is extremely unlikely (5% chance) to result from ordinary climate variations. Something must have forced it to change. It is very likely (90% chance) that humans are responsible. As you have pointed out before, methane certainly has an effect. Why do you rule out CO2 (which lasts longer in the atmosphere and constitutes a much larger percentage of it)?
Wow. Where to start?
This statement assumes that you are a “rational” person who considers “all the evidence”. This is most definitely not true, and I’ll prove it:
That’s a good question – how could it? And if this question were coming from a rational person, it would have been followed by an actual search for the answer. This, however was a rhetorical question. It was only asked because you assume that it is further proof that AGW is wrong. Let’s look at what might’ve happened if you had actually searched for an answer to your question. From the same article you referenced:
Now, taking this one step further, to the NSIDC website, to explore the sea ice situation, one will find the following graphs, which show that sea ice growth has slowed dramatically, and is now in line with last year, and WELL BELOW that of the 1979-2000 average:
http://www.nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/200812_Figure2.png
http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
To someone who actually considered ALL of the evidence, this would raise a new question: How could the sea ice extent be both the same as 29 years ago and much lower than the historic average at the same time? These two claims would seem to present a contradiction. To solve the problem, one might then look back at the graph provided in the Daily Tech article and see that the author was comparing the sea ice extent after this recent increase with the lowest point in 1979:
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/9972_large_daily.gsia.jpg
The actual rate of decrease is much smaller than the yearly fluctuations, which can allow for such misleading assertions.
So, a much better question might be: Is sea ice extent increasing, compared to historic levels? And the correct answer would be “NO”.
Now, let’s go back to the “Sun and water vapor” argument:
“AGW Believers” do not ignore the Sun and water vapor — they have proven that they are not primary drivers of climate change. There are several ways to prove that the Sun does not play a major role. One of the best is simply to look at the changing temperatures in different levels of our atmosphere. Right now, the lower troposphere is warming, while the stratosphere is cooling. This is a clear sign that greenhouse gases are to blame. If increases in the Sun’s output were causing the earth to warm, we would see a more uniform warming throughout the atmosphere. Scientists also know that water vapor does not play a prominent role because of its atmospheric lifetime. Each molecule of water vapor only stays in the atmosphere for a few days, compared to approximately 100 to 250 years for CO2. This means that if temperatures lower, some water vapor will quickly condense out of the atmosphere. So, water vapor comcentration is dependent upon temperature, which means that it cannot CAUSE a change in temperature. Sure, there is a lot more water vapor in the atmosphere, but that only means that it makes a much larger contribution to the TOTAL greenhouse effect. What we are concerned about is climate CHANGE.
I hope this clears some things up for you.
The one thing that cowards like Porter Good never dare do is link to the original source of this data… because then, you see, someone might see something that Porter doesn’t want you to see.
Porter Good does not want you to see that for the past thirty years, the area of the Northern Hemisphere sea ice at its summer minimum has been trending steadily downward. And he definitely does not want you to see that the Northern Hemisphere sea ice anomaly — that is, the difference between the average of the sea ice area from 1978 to 2000 and the sea ice area by year — has also been trending steadily negative, and in recent years that trend has accelerated. No, seeing such things are bad bad BAD for the fable that Porter Good is trying to sell, and so he does not dare give you a link to these facts.
Now, it is in fact true that “global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago”… but this statement utterly ignores the fact that sea ice area is cyclical. The claim is a particularly unsubtle example of cherry-picking the data, and is deliberately designed to obscure the downward trend in sea ice area.
But we really should not judge Porter too harshly. He is capable of little more than regurgitating the misinformation that he has been spoon-fed by the denier noise machine, and really does not possess the skills to seek out climate information independently of the deniers. He seems really quite happy in his ignorance.
Teach,
I also had a comment, but I think it got stuck in moderation. Could you free it please?
Got it. Akismet nailed it, all the links. Surprised it didn’t get meatheads.
Teach,
Thanks for retrieving my comment. Now, I’d be interested to see your response to the fact that this news is not proof against AGW, and that the Sun and water vapor are not the primary contributing factors in recent global warming.
I guess Teach wasn’t interested in talking about the science after all. Oh well…
No, Teach was very busy yesterday, involved in managers meetings then doing performance evaluations and meetings with reps. I will try and read the information today.
However, it doesn’t matter, because no matter what, nothing ever changes the opinions of those of you who believe Man is the cause (yet you do very little to change your own behavior.) Nothing I or anyone else ever changes your minds, you want to believe that Man is the cause.
I am perfectly willing to change my mind when I am presented with better evidence or it can be shown I am mistaken about the evidence. So here’s your chance, Teach. Quit complaining and make your best case.
“I am perfectly willing to change my mind when I am presented with better evidence or it can be shown I am mistaken about the evidence.”
False. We know that when presented with the facts, Porter Good will do… nothing at all.
Teach, it appears you weren’t too busy to write several posts yesterday, why didn’t you answer some of your commenters’questions?
Because Real Life takes precedence over blogging.
I read the material. Interesting, and unconvincing.
I understand Real Life takes precedence but you are blogging, just not answering questions that your commenters took the time to ask.
We all have very strong opinions about AGW, Teach, but if yours is an informed opinion than it shouldn’t be too hard to explain the evidence you find most compelling…unless of course you never bothered to examine all the evidence.
In debating, when faced with a counter-point, you should then be able to provide another counter of your own. Otherwise, your point is without merit.
You claimed that the Sun is to blame, but I explained that this couldn’t be true because of the cooling of the stratosphere. In order for your argument to have any merit, you would have to prove me wrong. Otherwise, you’re wrong, but you’re choosing to ignore facts, which contradicts your claim that you “consider all the evidence”.
You also claimed that water vapor is a major factor, but I explained that while it does play a major role in the total greenhouse effect, it does not play a major part in climate CHANGE, because of its extremely short atmospheric lifetime. Again, if that is not convincing, please explain why with your own rebuttal.
“I read the material. Interesting, and unconvincing.”
It is important to note that when a wingnut uses a word, very often it means something utterly disconnected from its normal English usage. For instance, in the comment above, Porter Good uses the word “unconvincing”. What this means in wingnutese is “since it directly disproves the fringe meme I have chosen to spread, these facts will be summarily ignored”.
What is even more amusing is what wingnuts choose to be convinced by. Take the first sentence of the article that Porter Good cited:
“Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.”
Oooooo! A stake right through the heart of that moonbat ‘global warming’ goofiness, right? Unless, of course, one happens to actually look at the graph that the author of the article uses to illustrate his point. The graph clearly shows that in recent months, the total surface area of global sea ice has actually dropped precipitously, from more than 22 million square kilometers to less than 18. In the world of the wingnut, “rebound” means “falling like a stone”.
Always remember, kids: The wingnut is your best entertainment value.
By my count Teach has now posted on seven stories since he told us he was too busy to respond to our questions. The best he could come up with was the rhetorical equivalent of “nah-ah.” At least be honest, Teach. You never intended to.
Teach,
You acted offended when I made the comment that you seemed to have arrived at your opinions based on ideology rather than logic or facts, and yet here you are, completely ignoring a rebuttal that has been given to you. If it’s not convincing, please explain why. If you can’t explain why it is that you believe what you believe, especially when faced with a contradictory argument, you certainly begin to seem like an ideologue, who has not “considered all the evidence”, and indeed might have actually IGNORED the evidence he find to be inconvenient. I’m sure if I did the same thing, you’d be blasting me for believing in a global warming “religion”.
Now you folks know how those of us you call “skeptics” feel when we post stuff, and the content is virtually ignored.
It is not up to me to prove that Man is not the primary or sole cause of global warming: it is up to the Believers (who barely, if at all, practice what they preach) to prove that Man is the primary or sole cause, ignoring billions of years of evidence.
Teach said: Now you folks know how those of us you call “skeptics” feel when we post stuff, and the content is virtually ignored.
Teach, I always respond in detail to your comments. Besides, you’re not a skeptic you’re a denier. Skeptics actually discuss the evidence. You just ignore it and call people names.
It is not up to me to prove that Man is not the primary or sole cause of global warming:
Nobody is asking you to. We’re just asking for the common courtesy of a response to our questions. If you’ve given this as much thought as you claim you have then it shouldn’t be hard to articulate your position on AGW…unless of course you really haven’t given it that much thought.
“Now you folks know how those of us you call “skeptics†feel when we post stuff, and the content is virtually ignored.”
Porter Good is not a skeptic; he is a denier. What he posted was not ignored. Instead, several people tried to explain to Porter why the conclusions he drew from the UIUC report were not supported by the data. He did not “virtually” ignore this information, he ignored it in its totality.
His statement above can be read as a tacit admission that he does, in fact, ignore what he is told. The wingnut does not see discussions of this nature as an honest exchange of information and views; he sees them merely as an excuse to play a game of tit-for-tat.
Note also that Porter Good has put the lie to his claim that “[he is] perfectly willing to change [his] mind when [he is] presented with better evidence or it can be shown [he is] mistaken about the evidence.” Clearly, he is willing neither to change his mind, nor even to consider any evidence other than that which he has cherry-picked.
“It is not up to me to prove that Man is not the primary or sole cause of global warming: it is up to the Believers (who barely, if at all, practice what they preach) to prove that Man is the primary or sole cause, ignoring billions of years of evidence.”
Porter Good moves the goalposts. No one has asked him to “prove that Man is not the primary or sole cause of global warming”. Apparently, though, it is too much to ask Porter to even read the data that those of us who disagree with him have cited.
I read, Silke. I responded. It was interesting but unreal. What, do you want a point by point rebuttal of the massive amounts of material? Then write a post on it, rather then hijacking this one.
And, yeah, I do call those who believe in AGW names, in particular, Climahysterics. Those of us who do not believe are called far worse. The use of Deniers and Skeptics is meant to be on par with those who do not believe in the the Holocaust. Interestingly, the majority of people who believe in AGW are liberals, who also think Ahmadinejad is better then Bush, despite him being a Holocaust denier.
ANd there is a reason I call you climahysterics. The majority of you folks yammer on and on about how bad it is, yet, that is about as far as it goes. Like most liberal beliefs, it is always someone else who must sacrifice. Most are not giving up their gas burning SUVs and minivans, unplugging all their appliances when done with them, giving up their plasma and lcd tv’s (they are now considered bad for climate change,) and really doing nothing, other then maybe changing over to a CFL or 2, which are much worse, considering the mercury in them.
AGW is similar to Scientology. The facts, such as they are, are, at best, skewed and unreliable, at worse, falsified. AGW is reliant on computer models which tend to ignore natural processes such as the Sun, water vapor, La Nina and El Nino, and volcano’s. It tends to focus on what could happen 50-100 years from now, reminding me more of Madame Zelda at the carnival rather then people who are using the scientific method. Hell, I believe in Darwinism more then AGW. So many of the people who lead in the AGW crowd have something to gain from pushing it. Of course, Scientology does have one difference: they practice what they preach. I might have continued to believe in the whole AGW thing if the people pushing and believing it practiced what THEY believed.
Notice how methane is rarely ever mentioned? I wonder why? Could it be because it is not a sexy gas, and wouldn’t help the narrative?
And meatbrain, if your attempt at continuously using my real name is meant to be assholish, you have succeeded. Do it again, and you are out of here. This is not a free speech zone. I pay for it. If I wanted to use it, I would use it for my author name. You are just doing it like that to be offensive. One and only warning.
“And meatbrain, if your attempt at continuously using my real name is meant to be assholish, you have succeeded. Do it again, and you are out of here. This is not a free speech zone. I pay for it. If I wanted to use it, I would use it for my author name. You are just doing it like that to be offensive. One and only warning.”
Translation: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!
SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO CONNECT ME TO MY OWN LIES AND DISHONESTY!
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!
Absolutely hilarious. It doesn’t have the guts to own its own arguments. I think that tells us all we need to know about it.
Teach said: What, do you want a point by point rebuttal of the massive amounts of material?
No, but I would appreciate an answer to my earlier questions:
1. How is this article relevant? You state yourself the dispute is not whether the earth is warming but why.
2. Do you know of a study that supports your argument that the output from the Sun has changed significantly enough to account for the recent warming trend?
3. Why do you acknowledge methane’s effect but not CO2’s?
The use of Deniers and Skeptics is meant to be on par with those who do not believe in the the Holocaust.
I honestly never thought of it that way, Teach. I would never compare someone who disagrees with the evidence supporting AGW with a holocaust denier. Those who do it are wrong and I hope I didn’t offend you. I won’t use that term again.
The facts, such as they are, are, at best, skewed and unreliable, at worse, falsified.
I’m willing to consider whatever facts or scientific organizations you deem reliable. Just cite something…anything…not just more unsupported assertions (often demonstrably false ones).
AGW is reliant on computer models which tend to ignore natural processes
Computer models do consider natural processes. They are an integral part of them. You may disagree with their conclusions but natural processes have not been ignored. Just look at the Table of Contents on page 590 of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf
The fact that you can make such demonstrably false statements seriously damages your credibility on this topic, Teach.
Notice how methane is rarely ever mentioned?
Not true. It is mentioned throughout the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. There’s even an entire section dedicated to it in Chapter 2 of the Working Group I report (Atmospheric Methane, page 140). I’ll even link you to it:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
Again, this is easily shown to be false. Not only are you mistaken about this but the fact that you acknowledge methane and ignore CO2 is mystifying.
“I would never compare someone who disagrees with the evidence supporting AGW with a holocaust denier. Those who do it are wrong and I hope I didn’t offend you. I won’t use that term again.”
Oh, puh-leeeze. It denies the facts. It is a denier. Kindly refuse to let it pull a guilt trip on you.
Meatbrain said: Oh, puh-leeeze. It denies the facts. It is a denier. Kindly refuse to let it pull a guilt trip on you.
No, Holocaust deniers are in a special category all by themselves which is why I have no problem toning down the rhetoric and making it clear that I was not comparing him to one. When it comes to AGW Teach is uninformed, not delusional.
The irony of the fact that he lumps everyone who disagrees with him about AGW together as “climahysterics” is probably lost on him but Oh well…
By the way, in case you haven’t figured it out from the name clearly posted before the comment, I’m the one who said “I’m perfectly willing to change my mind when I am presented with better evidence…†not Teach.
Silke: You’re quite right. I stand corrected. Obviously, this has never been a part of its mindset.
Yea! We now have a new AGW post up in which to wait for answers to our climate science queries. :P
Teach, I’m not going to use it, since it obviously bothers you, but I think I actually like your real name better than William Teach. It’s better than mine: Jason Leggett. -blegh-
I’ve said my piece, Reasic. If you do not like it, tough.
As far as the name goes, it’s not that I do not like my name (and, BTW, yours is just fine, IMO), just that I do not want it used here on the blog, particularly in the way meatbrain was using it, just to be annoying. But, I do appreciate the sentiment.
Teach, do you plan to respond to the three questions I asked? I would appreciate it.