Perhaps the area increased but the depth decreased. NASA reveals dramatic thinning of Arctic sea ice
This is interesting.
Sea Ice : Weather Underground
This is interesting.
Sea Ice : Weather Underground
How the GW myth is perpetuated
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
Rain used to come to the prairiesin the summer from the west as violent thunderstorms now it's coming from the north and packs no punch. I remember hearing this pattern shift being predicted 20 years ago and now here it is raining on the prairies from the tundra melting and drying.
So if it's not raining in BC and the prairies are getting water from the north, then where is the Pacific moisture going?
Debbie Stabenow a Democrat Senator from Michigan, and she's oh-so-concerned about (gasp!) global warming. (I don't have to tell you that she is a Democrat, do I?) Stabenow is so special that she can actually feel the global warming when she's flying! Yup! She's that good!
Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data
Tags: SCIENCE/HEALTH/CLIMATE/NATURE
Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.
In an interview with the BBC’s Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a “mistake” when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years.
Alex Jones’ Prison Planet.com » Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data
Tags: SCIENCE/HEALTH/CLIMATE/NATURE
Greenpeace leader Gerd Leipold has been forced to admit that his organization issued misleading and exaggerated information when it claimed that Arctic ice would disappear completely by 2030, in a crushing blow for the man-made global warming movement.
In an interview with the BBC’s Stephen Sackur on the “Hardtalk” program, Leipold initially attempted to evade the question but was ultimately forced to admit that Greenpeace had made a “mistake” when it said Arctic ice would disappear completely in 20 years.
Alex Jones’ Prison Planet.com » Greenpeace Leader Admits Organization Put Out Fake Global Warming Data
Hardly a 'crushing blow', since any rational person on either side of the debate doesn't believe anythign Greenpeace says anyway.
And coal lobbyists hire a PR firm to send out forged letters to Senators. Delivering a crushing blow to deniers everywhere. Not really though. You would need to be a rational person to find that embarrassing enough to smarten up. But that doesn't describe the ACCCE, who still are trying to get away with it.
LMAO
LMAO
And while we're on the topic of astroturf:
Houston’s Energy Citizens Company Picnic « TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas
Houston’s Energy Citizens Company Picnic « TexasVox: The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas
UN Climate Report Confuses Arctic and Antarctic
Harold Ambler on October 6, 2009
Things get stranger and stranger with the United Nations’ climate change science compendium published two weeks back.
First, it was learned that the graph indicating temperature for the past 1,000 years had been taken from Wikipedia, where it had been deposited by a non-climatologist. Now, it comes to light that the report features a photograph purporting to show Arctic icebergs melting, when the actual image is of Antarctica.
As I looked through the updated report yesterday, in which the Wikipedia graph has been removed, I noticed that an image looked to have been misidentified. Fortunately for me, the UN had purchased the image on Shutterstock.com, where about an hour’s worth of sleuthing revealed that indeed this was not a picture from the top of the world, but rather from the bottom.
Some will say that it doesn’t matter. I think it does. The United Nations claims to be the steward of the best science on the planet. Wouldn’t one hope that it would have staff capable of differentiating between Antarctica and the Arctic? Of course, global warming alarmists, including those employed at the United Nations, have been using both polar ice caps’ supposed melt as evidence of runaway global warming for years now. Meanwhile, though, Antarctic sea ice has continued to increase in extent throughout the satellite era, and temperatures at the South Pole have slowly fallen.
Nonetheless, the fear-mongers in the media and at the United Nations strive to frighten the credulous into believing that Earth’s southernmost continent is on the verge of catastrophic melt. As for the Arctic misrepresented by the UN’s photograph, how many of the report’s editors even know that sea ice increased in 2009 in the Arctic for the second year in a row? At the United Nations Environment Program, the answer is evidently: none. A map with a list of “climate anomalies” from the last year indicates that 2009 was the second most significant melt in the Arctic. In fact, it was the third lowest melt and may very well represent a turnaround. Only time will tell. Even The New York Times has an article today addressing the seeming good news.
Harold Ambler on October 6, 2009
Things get stranger and stranger with the United Nations’ climate change science compendium published two weeks back.
First, it was learned that the graph indicating temperature for the past 1,000 years had been taken from Wikipedia, where it had been deposited by a non-climatologist. Now, it comes to light that the report features a photograph purporting to show Arctic icebergs melting, when the actual image is of Antarctica.
As I looked through the updated report yesterday, in which the Wikipedia graph has been removed, I noticed that an image looked to have been misidentified. Fortunately for me, the UN had purchased the image on Shutterstock.com, where about an hour’s worth of sleuthing revealed that indeed this was not a picture from the top of the world, but rather from the bottom.
Some will say that it doesn’t matter. I think it does. The United Nations claims to be the steward of the best science on the planet. Wouldn’t one hope that it would have staff capable of differentiating between Antarctica and the Arctic? Of course, global warming alarmists, including those employed at the United Nations, have been using both polar ice caps’ supposed melt as evidence of runaway global warming for years now. Meanwhile, though, Antarctic sea ice has continued to increase in extent throughout the satellite era, and temperatures at the South Pole have slowly fallen.
Nonetheless, the fear-mongers in the media and at the United Nations strive to frighten the credulous into believing that Earth’s southernmost continent is on the verge of catastrophic melt. As for the Arctic misrepresented by the UN’s photograph, how many of the report’s editors even know that sea ice increased in 2009 in the Arctic for the second year in a row? At the United Nations Environment Program, the answer is evidently: none. A map with a list of “climate anomalies” from the last year indicates that 2009 was the second most significant melt in the Arctic. In fact, it was the third lowest melt and may very well represent a turnaround. Only time will tell. Even The New York Times has an article today addressing the seeming good news.
A noted geologist who coauthored the New York Times bestseller Sugar Busters has turned his attention to convincing Congress that carbon dioxide emisions are good for the Earth and don't cause global warming. Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment
by reducing CO2 levels.
"I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.
Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.
Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
So much for what we should be believing in. Make any living changes you want in your life because you want to, not because you will effect anything, the Earth can still support you. The whole idea of 'Global Warming" is becoming like a religion, believe in it or not.
by reducing CO2 levels.
"I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says. "We are tilting at windmills." He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.
Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.
Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)
So much for what we should be believing in. Make any living changes you want in your life because you want to, not because you will effect anything, the Earth can still support you. The whole idea of 'Global Warming" is becoming like a religion, believe in it or not.
What a moron. I guess he's fine with dead oceans...
And newsflash for the geologist, he may want to check out plant science. Plenty of agrologists are studying future scenarios, and when more CO2 is in the air, with higher temperatures and less moisture, (as projected for much of the world's currently arable croplands) plant growth is stunted. It's not nearly as simple as he figures the Senators and American people are.
And newsflash for the geologist, he may want to check out plant science. Plenty of agrologists are studying future scenarios, and when more CO2 is in the air, with higher temperatures and less moisture, (as projected for much of the world's currently arable croplands) plant growth is stunted. It's not nearly as simple as he figures the Senators and American people are.
The dead oceans are the scary part, climates shift, deserts where lush land used to be. N. America will look like the dry parts of Australia. Not a nice scenario.
Higher temperatures means increased evaporation, doesn't necessarily mean more moisture in the air, just how much the air can hold. The soil becomes dry and compacted. What you end up with is more desert, and the rainfall events tend to be larger. With compacted soil, that doesn't do much for vegetation, and actually means the chances of severe floods increase.
It means better conditions for some areas, for frontier regions. Canada and Russia are probably going to do quite well.
PM warns of climate 'catastrophe'
The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.
Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".
He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B".
World delegations meet in Copenhagen in December for talks on a new treaty.
'Rising wave' The United Nations (UN) summit will aim to establish a deal to replace the 1997 Kyoto treaty as its targets for reducing emissions only apply to a small number of countries and expire in 2012.
“ Once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice ”
Gordon Brown
Mr Brown warned that negotiators were not reaching agreement quickly enough and said it was a "profound moment" for the world involving "momentous choice".
"In Britain we face the prospect of more frequent droughts and a rising wave of floods," he told delegates.
"The extraordinary summer heatwave of 2003 in Europe resulted in over 35,000 extra deaths.
Grim warning "On current trends, such an event could become quite routine in Britain in just a few decades' time. And within the lifetime of our children and grandchildren the intense temperatures of 2003 could become the average temperature experienced throughout much of Europe."
ANALYSIS
Richard Black, BBC News
During his term as chancellor, environmental groups often accused Gordon Brown of not paying enough attention to climate change, and the Treasury of blocking "green" policies. He was sometimes compared unfavourably to Tony Blair.
However, Mr Brown promoted the inclusion of developing countries in climate finance during the UK's term as G7 president in 2005. And this year, his involvement has become much more overt.
He was the first head of government to commit to attending December's UN summit in Copenhagen; and his recent call to establish a $100bn (£61bn) per year fund for climate adaptation is widely seen as giving impetus to those negotiations. Whether current scientific understanding warrants his warning of "catastrophe" for the UK if greenhouse gas levels rise unchecked is perhaps open to question. A recent report by Kofi Annan's Global Humanitarian Forum found the UK was one of 12 nations least likely to be affected by climate impacts.
The costs of failing to tackle the issue would be greater than the impact of both world wars and the Great Depression combined, the prime minister said.
The world would face more conflict fuelled by climate-induced migration if a deal was not agreed, he added.
He told the forum, on the second day of talks in the capital, that by 2080 an extra 1.8 billion people - a quarter of the world's current population - could lack sufficient water.
Mr Brown said: "If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice.
"So we should never allow ourselves to lose sight of the catastrophe we face if present warming trends continue."
Agreement at Copenhagen "is possible", he concluded.
"But we must frankly face the plain fact that our negotiators are not getting to agreement quickly enough. So I believe that leaders must engage directly to break the impasse."
In recent days there have been a number of warnings that progress is stalling.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told Newsweek magazine "the prospects that states will actually agree to anything in Copenhagen are starting to look worse and worse".
The Major Economies Forum is not part of the formal UN process and so firm commitments are unlikely to come from the meeting. It is seen instead as a gathering where countries can explore options and positions in a less pressured environment.
BBC News
What a twit. No wonder his party will be voted out next election with piffle like this dribbling from his gob.
The UK faces a "catastrophe" of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves if world leaders fail to agree a deal on climate change, the prime minister has warned.
Gordon Brown said negotiators had 50 days to save the world from global warming and break the "impasse".
He told the Major Economies Forum in London, which brings together 17 of the world's biggest greenhouse gas-emitting countries, there was "no plan B".
World delegations meet in Copenhagen in December for talks on a new treaty.
'Rising wave' The United Nations (UN) summit will aim to establish a deal to replace the 1997 Kyoto treaty as its targets for reducing emissions only apply to a small number of countries and expire in 2012.
“ Once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice ”
Gordon Brown
Mr Brown warned that negotiators were not reaching agreement quickly enough and said it was a "profound moment" for the world involving "momentous choice".
"In Britain we face the prospect of more frequent droughts and a rising wave of floods," he told delegates.
"The extraordinary summer heatwave of 2003 in Europe resulted in over 35,000 extra deaths.
Grim warning "On current trends, such an event could become quite routine in Britain in just a few decades' time. And within the lifetime of our children and grandchildren the intense temperatures of 2003 could become the average temperature experienced throughout much of Europe."
ANALYSIS
Richard Black, BBC News
During his term as chancellor, environmental groups often accused Gordon Brown of not paying enough attention to climate change, and the Treasury of blocking "green" policies. He was sometimes compared unfavourably to Tony Blair.
However, Mr Brown promoted the inclusion of developing countries in climate finance during the UK's term as G7 president in 2005. And this year, his involvement has become much more overt.
He was the first head of government to commit to attending December's UN summit in Copenhagen; and his recent call to establish a $100bn (£61bn) per year fund for climate adaptation is widely seen as giving impetus to those negotiations. Whether current scientific understanding warrants his warning of "catastrophe" for the UK if greenhouse gas levels rise unchecked is perhaps open to question. A recent report by Kofi Annan's Global Humanitarian Forum found the UK was one of 12 nations least likely to be affected by climate impacts.
The costs of failing to tackle the issue would be greater than the impact of both world wars and the Great Depression combined, the prime minister said.
The world would face more conflict fuelled by climate-induced migration if a deal was not agreed, he added.
He told the forum, on the second day of talks in the capital, that by 2080 an extra 1.8 billion people - a quarter of the world's current population - could lack sufficient water.
Mr Brown said: "If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement, in some future period, can undo that choice.
"So we should never allow ourselves to lose sight of the catastrophe we face if present warming trends continue."
Agreement at Copenhagen "is possible", he concluded.
"But we must frankly face the plain fact that our negotiators are not getting to agreement quickly enough. So I believe that leaders must engage directly to break the impasse."
In recent days there have been a number of warnings that progress is stalling.
Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, told Newsweek magazine "the prospects that states will actually agree to anything in Copenhagen are starting to look worse and worse".
The Major Economies Forum is not part of the formal UN process and so firm commitments are unlikely to come from the meeting. It is seen instead as a gathering where countries can explore options and positions in a less pressured environment.
BBC News
What a twit. No wonder his party will be voted out next election with piffle like this dribbling from his gob.
It would take many years for the permafrost to melt,the tundra drys up every summer but its such a good insulator that allmost everything under it stays frozen.Thats one of the reasons spring breakup only lasts a week northwest of hudsons bay,the water cant go into the ground and when it hits the lakes that ice also melts very quickly.
As long as they keep getting the 24 hours of darkness each winter I dont think we have to worry too much about the arctic becoming a tropical paradise.
Come drill on a lake just past the tree line with me sometime. 20 years ago we rarely sniffed a hole for methane, these days you can toss a match in and make coffee. The summer time off gassing of Tundra is up from the longer hotter warm streches...waaaaaay up.