I love satire
Great satire is when you can't tell that the author is extracting the urine. Good job!
The amount of floating ice in the Arctic's Bering Sea - which had long been expected to retreat disastrously by climate-Cassandra organisations such as Greenpeace - reached all-time record high levels last month, according to US researchers monitoring the area using satellites. The US National Snow and Ice Data Center …
With Lewis, it seems to be conviction driven reporting rather than satire. If anybody would care to check the bigger picture of arctic sea ice cover as reported by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (reference was conveniently omitted in the article), you'd find that the high Bering sea ice cover is a local phenomenon and has no bearing on the continuous decline of arctic sea ice.
Reality is for whimps, real men know the
truth truthiness, it comes from the heart!
To use the author's cowardly nomenclature: Funny you say that boffin. The increase in antarctic sea ice is related not to seawater freezing, but rather to land-ice sliding faster into the sea \ ocean because of increasing amounts of melt underneath the glaciers. The range of ice floats may be expanding, but its thickness is diminishing, in all making the total floating ice volume less.
I don't think your link demonstrates a "continual" decline in ice. It shows more ice in 2012 than in 2007. They're both below the average of 1997-2000, but is this in normal variance and if outside by how much?
That said, I normally agree with Lewis' articles, because as a skeptic of AGW I have a lot of reservations about much climate reportage. But in this case he seems to be pushing the idea that the Earth isn't warming. We pretty much know that the average global temperature has been rising since the start of the Twentieth Century. I'm not fully convinced the main reason is human activity, but the rise is measurable. (Note: Ice may not be the best measure).
Why were there two links to Greenpeace statements in this so called article but none to the source of the so called science being discussed? Glad to see Reg have given up on fact altogether in climate reporting and make no pretence of doing anything except going straight for smearing actual science and nature organisations
"doing anything except going straight for smearing actual science and nature organisations"
Oh really? This would be the same "science and nature organisation" that had its charitable status in New Zealand revoked on the grounds that it's now nothing more than a political activist marxist/communist front organisation clothing itself in green?
You can take the ice report used as the basis for this article (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) and do the following:
"Ice arch too thin to hold back sea ice, weakened by Global Warming arch breaks inundating Bearing Strait with excessive ice!"
As plucked straight from arse as is the original Page article.
My thoughts exactly. You can expect more mobile ice to flow downstream when a frozen river thaws in spring, and this transition can be locally catastrophic. Sounds like a temporary local drain blockage, soon overwhelmed by the weight of what follows behind.
Apparently you do stay for the 'ranting hillbilly', otherwise you wouldn't be commenting here. It's almost a parallel to Daily Mail reader rants - substitute "I blame Immigration/Communists/Unions" with "I blame Corporations/Right-Wingers/George Bush....or ranting hillbilly".
Don't get me wrong, I love a good rant too - its good for the soul. I prefer mine to be a little more logical though.
On the subject at hand, I'm bored of offering a balanced opinion as there are a few too many fanatics (mainly on the pro-man-made global warming side) on this subject - I fear being carbon-neutral, CFC/lead free flamed...
So it can't be true. Can it?
I particularly enjoyed the comment about how records began in 1979. I was only born in 1978 so that means that our entire history of accurate sea ice records is slightly younger than I am. How on earth (sic) are we supposed to make informed decisions as to what the effects of anthropological climate change are, if any, if we have no records other than those produced by proxy?
Personally I think we have reached the point as a species where we recognise our ability to affect our global environment and I don't think we'll ever go back to blythely dumping chemical waste into the oceans etc but we need to take measurements like this as a reminder that we know next to nothing about how the monumentally complex weather systems and temperature controls of our planet work. More study needed and in the meantime, don't be a dick.
"How on earth (sic) are we supposed to make informed decisions as to what the effects of anthropological climate change are, if any, if we have no records other than those produced by proxy?"
Who says you are supposed to? What you are seeing is what you get. An accelerating decline in arctic sea ice since 1979 which may very well continue - almost certainly if the arctic keeps warming up. Noone knows for sure what will happen as a result. Reassured?
Say, for example, that sea ice had increased considerably from 1900 to 1979 but nobody was measuring it; then in 1979 we started measuring and the sea ice started to melt in an, oh, I don't know, cycle maybe? We would only know about the decline and not the previous increase and so our view that "Sea ice is decreasing year on year" would be an accurate albeit flawed diagnosis.
Just saying; we know nothing and a little information can be very dangerous.
The surface area of sea ice in the arctic as a whole is below the long term average - as it has been continuously for the last nine years.
However, the volume, or mass of arctic sea sea ice is calculated to be equalling last year's all time low for the time of year.
If this trend in the rate of melting continues, we will sea the Arctic completely ice free at its summer minimum before the end of this decade, possibly even in September 2015.
Someone has ruined Page's Don Quixote crusade with an actual fact.
And if anyone wants to read real science instead of mouthy juvenilia, there's this:
People of Science Clue already realise the ice comes and goes.
But - as you correctly point out - it's the long term trend that matters, not a one-off spot measurement.
I consider myself a skeptic, based entirely on the fact that it's far easier to be a skeptic than get the bus. However, it seems to me (the casual, stupid observer) that the environmental argument is "softening". Not going away, not that recycling isn't a good thing, but that this isn't the end of the earth in our lifetime story it once was.
Now, if it isn't the massive risk it was made out to be, and Governments have taken billions in environmental taxes that were perhaps without substance. What should be done? Will we every know? Will in the next 20 or 30 years we be able to definitively say "yep, they were right, we're screwed" or the opposite?
I ponder the above as I genuinely don't know, not to cause a flame war.
No you are being misled. Arctic sea ice is in decline and concerns about it are well founded.
The best depiction of what is actually happening to arctic sea ice is the following graph:
Notice how far sea ice area has dropped in summer in recent years and how close it is now to the zero mark. The loss of ice is a state change. A barrier of ice at the surface has a big impact on absorbed/reflected sunlight, wave heights, evaporation and heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. It is a big deal for the summer arctic to switch from largely ice covered to largely ice free in a matter of decades.
Compare that to the Antarctic situation:
It is a ludicrous strawman of this article that the Antarctic increase (can you see it in that graph?) "cancels" out the arctic summer decrease. First it isn't true, second whatever happens in Antarctica does not alter the significance of what is happening in the arctic and that summer sea ice is heading towards zero (even accelerating)
The register article also focuses on a maximum during the dead of "winter", which completely ignores the issue of summer loss approaching zero (in fact even winter sea ice area is trending downwards - but it's summer that is heading somewhere new - zero). In fact the article uses various other tricks to ignore that, including addressing an obscure greenpeace statement from 1999 and associating any concern with arctic sea ice with that statement - so if that statement is wrong clearly there isn't a problem right?
Third, one single year doesn't make a trend. Focusing on the current sea ice anomaly when it goes somewhat higher than normal is a common climate skeptic trick. Sea ice anomaly bounces around all the time. Every year it goes above normal at some point (but that's becoming less frequent). When it does a number of climate skeptics exploit that to trick the public with claims like "arctic ice now recovered to normal levels" or "despite fears arctic ice is at the same level it was 20 years ago". Yet the longterm trend is downwards. They ignore that by cherrypicking single dates.
Hope this isn't a silly question, but is zero ice really a significant state change?
Your point is that declining ice produces positive feedback (there is more sea, which absorbs more heat rather than reflecting it like ice does). There is less and less ice, then at some point there is no ice at some point in the year.
At that point, in sea level terms, things stop getting any worse. Sure the ice can decline further (no ice for one month each year, no ice for three months each year ...). And that might lead to bigger storms to exacerbate the problems with sea levels.
But in this continuous decline, what is so special about the point when the ice disappears? It's just a point on a curve, not a step change.
no it's not a silly question, I think you are right - there's nothing special about any particular point, just the difference between the two extremes. I am not saying catastrophe will unfold just that it's a massive change for the arctic environment and very fast. It could have very big significance for weather in the UK during summer. I don't know. But articles like this pretending that it's just some non-event are kind of in denial.
The loss of permanent icecaps is significant: It signals the end of the current Ice age and the return to a temperate age.
Nothing wrong with that, on a planetary scale. Possibly disastrous for us as a species, if we don't adapt quickly enough, but probability is we'll have a chance to adapt and evolve (and so prove evolution is real). This is nature, after all, and nature likes change.
Thing is: We don't know for sure what will happen or what to expect at the end of an Ice age as there's very little evidence (other than fossils and soil layers, and we're guessing at what most of those actually mean). As an environmentalist friend said: When looking at the planet's history, we've the equivalent of a can of Coke, a crisp packet and some peanuts to go by, and we're guessing that's what we've got as we can't read the writing.
I think it has to do with something called our planet's "albedo": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo . IANAP, but see if this makes sense:
Ice and snow reflect a lot of visible sunlight (i.e. they are white), not sure about the infrared absorption. Ocean looks dark if you look from above because all the plants (seaweed, algae) that live in its top layer try to absorb as much of the visible light as they can to grow. I bet it absorbs almost all of the infrared that falls on it, as well.
I realize that IR and visible absorption have not much to do with each other, but assuming the IR absorption stays the same whether the Arctic is molten or not, and the visible absorption doubles (albedo halved from snow to seawater), that would still mean that the Arctic ocean area would warm a fraction faster (fraction determined by visible irradiation / ( visible + IR ) irradiation ).
Or am I making an error somewhere?
All over the place, so let's start with the simplest one: from the peak of the current ice age, if you halve the amount of snow and ice on the planet you don't get a 50% drop in the albedo, because at most you've got about 32% of the surface of the Earth covered with ice. Then you factor in that clouds actually account for more albedo than ice, and ...
Yeah, it will contribute somewhere, but they don't even know how the primaries in front of it factor into driving the thing.
>At that point, in sea level terms, things stop getting any worse.
(I think)Actually at that point the sea level stop getting any better.(ice is less dense so less ice = more dense water = lower sea levels). The problem is ice that is not floating in the sea but is on land. As the planet warms up more of that melts.
Thanks for the data. Looking at the 2 graphs you link to, there is a general 30-year trend to less ice especially in the north. Besides the fact that the graphs aren't the easiest to read, it seems to me there is a general trend over the last 3-5 years of less ice in the north and more in the south. Of course 1 year, or even 3 years do not make a trend but 3 years is 10% of the data set. So I agree it's worrying for now but we really should be worried if the summer 2012 ice extent in the north goes below the summer 2011.
It would be more interesting to me to hear if there is any known mechanism why ice formation should be shifting to the south, rather than arguing about whether the south pole gain compensates for the north pole loss. Is there any model / mechanism that explains this?
The arctic decline and antarctic increase are not thought to be connected. At least I haven't read of any attempt to connect them. Around the antarctic peninsula which has warmed significantly the sea ice has actually declined, it is around the rest of antarctica it has increased so maybe those areas have cooled - I don't know, but I doubt it because if there was an easy explaination there wouldn't be two other hypotheses I have heard. One that wind circulation changes are responsible and another that fresh water increase from the antarctic ice sheet is lowering salinity in the area which reduces the freezing point enabling more ice. I don't buy either really.
I don't know the details of the data, but the hypothesized mechanism for warming leading to ice cap growth is that warmer (offshore) water puts more water vapor into the air, and as long as the antarctic proper is cold enough to squeeze that water vapor out again, you get a local increase in ice cap volume. Deposit more than melts/runs off the edges, and you get a net increase. No big mystery, and no big gotcha -- climate scientists were writing about this in papers written decades ago. The arctic is a lot closer (warmer) to freezing than the antarctic, so there warming can lead to shrinkage instead.
A recent hypothesis (supported by simulation) links a decrease in arctic ice (and a warmer arctic) to the weird weather we've had lately: http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2012/04/slowing-rossby-waves-leading-to-extreme.html
The size compared to the data set is irrelevant. The critical point is, how does the data set compare to the natural cycle length? Given that we can't even answer the question "what is the natural cycle length?" all the posturing truly is sound and fury signifying nothing. Which is sort of Lewis's continuing point in these articles.
Thanks for the factual data.
So if you ignore the datapoints from the last 5 years, it looks like the Arctic will be molten in september in 81 years, and if you include them (they seem a lot lower though) then it will be molten in september in 37 years.
Unless the last 5 years points are indicative of an acceleration (North Siberian fart-gas clathrates?).
So, NomNomNom you must be some kind of scientist, or perhaps you know how to use a search engine. Until the governments of the world agree to fund an INDEPENDENT study of the world's climate then may I suggest that the climate change advocates need to ask themselves a simple question. That is, should we spend billions, of whatever currency you prefer, on trying to prevent or capture carbon emissions, or should we let plants continue to do their job and spend the money on improving life for those with no reliable source of food, water or shelter?
The Earth's population is increasing.
It is increasing in regions where for some reason, humans are poorer.
In order to come out of poverty and feed themselves, populations need to spend MORE energy.
The ONLY way we have of producing energy right now, and for the foreseeable future, causes what alarmists call...evil poisonous greenhouse gases.
NOBODY ON THIS PLANET WILL EVER BE ABLE TO CONVINCE THESE FOLKS THAT DYING OF HUNGER OR FREEZING TO DEATH IS BETTER THAN THE EARTH GETTING A BIT WARMER.
You give them a choice between a dying polar bear, and dying themselves... they will pick the bear every single time...
What I'm saying here is... Weather on not MAN is responsible for some of the Earth's warming is completely moot unless you propose a REALISTIC way of coping with that "problem".
And so far I have not heard of a practical, realistic, applicable REAL solution to this "problem" proposed by ANYONE that would not kill off a % of the population and send the rest back to the freakin'stone age.
THAT is your problem right there! NOT the skeptics, NOT the oil companies, NOT the Chinese...
You find a PRACTICLE solution... people WILL be willing to apply it.
You ask for people to make MASSIVE changes and EXTREME sacrifices... you BETTER freakin have PROOF that they themselves are going to DIE. Proof beyond computer models that cant even go back in time a few years with any accuracy, beyond petty, lying, self aggrandising, egomaniacal "scientists", beyond theoretical studies.... PROOF.
(Glaciers have been retreating for 10000 years... they are not proof)
At this moment... you have NO proof... you have what you call "overwhelming" evidence... NOT ENOUGH.
And it all doesn't matter.
Working on a problem is useless unless you have a solution.
You have not proven that there is a problem, you are just pretty sure there is one... and you have NO solution... NONE.
"but that this isn't the end of the earth in our lifetime story it once was."
Look this sort of comment really pisses me off, sorry but it does. (actually not really sorry, just said that cause deep down somewhere I am nice person). The WORLD was never going to come to an end, it probably won't come to an end until the sun reaches its red giant stage and melts it like a snowflake, the end of the human race may come much sooner, but even so that doesn't mean the end of all life on Earth by a long shot, it will go happily on its ways sans humans and just a few slowly decaying ruins for future evolved intelligent life forms to ponder, thats if the ruins last that long. Give it a million years and plate tectonics and subduction will take care of that as well.
In fact scientists and energy organisations are saying Global Warming is tracking far worse than we had hoped and anticipated. Dangerous warming happens between 2-4 degrees and we were hoping to peg it to 2-3. Now it seems we're on track for 5 or 6 minimum which is in the catastrophic range. Softening LOL, we only wish. Kiss your precious economies goodbye, most economic projections of 4 degrees are not compatible with organised let alone "free" markets.
I wouldn't go that far yet. The True-Believers won't let Real Facts(tm) get in the way of Good Facts(tm) and are continue to become more strident. I hope that also hurts their credibility, but they've already successfully infiltrated too many of weather and environmental sciences to count of the Real Facts(tm) winning out absent articles like the ones Lewis posts.
Since I'm old enough to remember when the hippies were screaming about the coming ice age and how we'd all be out of oil before the end of the 1990s I'm a bit less tractable on this issue than they'd like. I'm all for continuing to study and record, but I really do want the politics out of it (that includes Hansen and Mann who are nothing but flim-flam artists shouting "Back off man, I'm a scientist!").
Cassandra was indeed a prophet and banged on with a whole bunch of dire warnings.
The rest of the story, however, is that her prophesies were correct. That was the gift that Apollo bestowed upon her: She'd have the power of prediction but because she wouldn't put out he then cursed her that nobody would ever believe her.
Therefore if you believe that Greenpeace are wrong, don't compare them to Cassandra because she was right.
Apologies for being such a pedant. I am sure that the rest of the article is much more thoroughly researched and doesn't contain such schoolboy errors.
For decades, ruling classes in the UK have had a classical, rather than a scientific, education. One would like to think the two aren't mutually exclusive, but...
Greenpeace seems more of a Straw Man than an Inverted Cassandra at the moment.
...by imposing guilt trips on people and promoting higher taxation...
Those are means. But the Hippy movement did believe in the ends, taking inspiration from the Indian subcontinent: A high population density for thousands of years by means of cultural devices, such as vegetarianism. (and a rigid caste system?). The hippy movement did seem to favour personal spiritual development over conspicuous consumption of resources.
Maybe the hippy movement was just a function of demographics- lots of young baby-boomers, many of whom are now rich, rich, rich. Hell, one editor of the counter-cultural Oz magazine made hundreds of millions on computer warehouses and publications.
"A high population density for thousands of years by means of cultural devices, such as vegetarianism. (and a rigid caste system?). The hippy movement did seem to favour personal spiritual development over conspicuous consumption of resources."
What? Indians are vegetarians because they're too poor to afford meat. The same lack of wealth leads to large families (can't afford contraception) which perpetuates the lack of wealth in the end as families have too many mouths to feed, clothe, and send to school. This is all a hippy conspiracy now rather than poverty and market economies leaving people to fail and die?
This whole thing had better be one big troll or my opinion of right wingers is going to lose so many points it will be lower than ice measurements in Greenland.
Cantennas are easy and powerful, thanks for the link ! But even for those who don't have German, there's no need to use Google Translate ; the Spiegel story would seem to be a rewrite of this English-language ESA posting (http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMDWMEWF0H_index_0.html)....
It was dem hippies wot don'it !...
Sure, ignore the hippies.
And while you're at it, ignore all the not-hippies doing actual science that shows the climate is changing. Just because I'm skeptical of the most apocalyptic scenarios being put forward, and because I'm not 100% convinced of the mechanisms causing the change and the extent of human involvement does not mean that one data point going against the trend will make ignore all the other data points that show a trend.
Jimbo gets right to the heart of the issue but is just as completely wrong as usual.
"....ignore all the not-hippies doing actual science that shows the climate is changing...." Great! Problem for you is the climate has been changing for millenia, and will keep on changing too. The debate is whether man is affecting the climate change in any noticeable amount, and whether we should cripple our development efforts in an attempt to "stabilise" the climate. That last idea is obviously stupid as the climate has never been stable, it has always changed, and if every humanbeing was removed from the planet tomorrow then it would STILL carry on changing. Our chances of "stabilising" the climate are also about zero given our inability to match the other factors (the Sun, the gravitational pull of the planets, the tides, etc, etc), and that's even if we could fully understand how they all interact.
AGW fanatics are like one of a pair of frogs in the classic slow-boil science experiment, where their pot is slowly being heated up but not fast enough for them to register the change and hop out before they die. In this case, the scientist has been a bit too eager and the frogs are getting worried. The sensible frog wants to jump out of the pot, but the problem is the AGW frog looks out of the pot and sees the Sun shining in the window, and has become convinced that the Sun is heating up the pot rather than the man in the labcoat. The AGW frog is desperately convinced that the only way to save him and his friend is to drag the potlid onto their pot to keep the sunshine out, and that he must force his colleague to accept his view that the potlid is the great saviour of frogkind.....
So one year sea ice in one bit of the Artic was extensive - so everything is OK. Because obviously the whole edifice of climate science was predicated on that. We can thankfully ignore all the bits of the Arrtic where there was less ice, and obviously hypotheses linking sea ice extent to weather patterns are comprehensively disproven, so fire up the old coal stove and relax.
Every time some example of data not matching the AGW gloom'n'doom predictions crops up it is dismissed as "cherry-picking". Problem is, there seem to be a lot of cherries in a lot of different areas of the science, and they all shouldn't be happening if the AGW model is correct.
I would rephrase " and they all shouldn't be happening if the AGW model is correct." to " and they all shouldn't be happening if the AGW model is completely accurate."
No-one I know is making any claims that their models are 100% correct / accurate and none of the models are detailed enough for the moment to predict very specific occurrences such as this. If a model correctly predicts 90-95% of what's going on, and something happens that isn't predicted, I use that occurrence to refine the model, I don't throw the model away and start again from scratch.
Great! Here's my theory - big sounds are made by demons hding in your head. To test it, I'm going to drop a book half-a-dozen times and see if there is a big noise. 100% success! Now you can't argue with me, my results are 100% correct, so just settle down in that guillotine for the good of the rest of us....
Come back when you're even close to 95% correct, and then when you can irrefutabely shwo that your theory is the actual cause of that 95% correct results and not just coincidental.
There may seem to be a lot of cherries, when, to streatch an analogy, you ignore the rest of the fruit market.
The climate 'science' that gets reported on here is a small, heavily biased, non-representative sample of the science as a whole. To use another fruit-based analogy, it's a bit like picking a bad grape out of a punnet and throwing the whole lot away, even though the others are all fine.
Nice picture version for those that need it: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Now, how much will this delay the new finer links they had planned to lay this year via the artic route. Did somebody setup a suncream shop up in the artic circle recently - only explanation realy :).
Still it's not how far the ice has extended during it's peak growing period apex - BUT how far it retreats in the summer. So Septemeber will be a better indication upon the health of the ice sheet. Until then - nothing to sea(sic) here.
There is nothing new about lots of UV in polar regions
Sunscreen is just as useful at the poles (in summer, d'oh!) as is in, say, Timbuktu.
Mushroom cloud: 'Cos you might want to get your factor 20,000,000 slapped on
The continuing disparage between what we expect to happen and what actually occurs only goes to explain that although we ( think that we ) understand that global warming is happening, we don't really understand what the hell is going on. Yes CO2 emissions are up and there is a direct correlation between greenhouse gases and temperature rises and yes we should reduce our impact on the world. However, time and time again we as a species fail to understand the complexities of Nature , its natural cycles and the knock on effect on one eco-system to the other.
I'm all pro reuse / recycle and for a concerted effort by all to reduce our impact on the planet for future generations, but seriously, Hippies, Scientists / Boffins , Governments and most importantly the Computer Techies of the world ( As we are naturally the most fantastic social group ) should stop debating and dedicated significant resources to understanding the problem , whilst reducing CO2 emissions ( just in case we were right in the first place ).
Climate Denialists ( Santorum etc ) should be put up against the wall and shot. Not because they are wrong, they 'could' be right but because they're f%^king stupid and you don't solve problems by wishing them away and shouting loudly.
"There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. This comment tells you all you need to know about the political ideology of Environmentalism."
Nonsense, this is what's wrong with taking a fragment of a paragraph and spinning it around to bolster your own agenda.
I'm simply advocating a mild mannered / gentle execution program for those that refuse to look at both sides of the argument. Ignorant shouty loud people need to go, its got nothing to do Environmentalism. However, the environment is directly benefited by the reduced carbon footprint of the now executed shouty loud person. Win-Win.
Re: "We're all doomed I tells ya"
Andy Roid McUser wrote:
"Climate Denialists ( Santorum etc ) should be put up against the wall and shot. Not because they are wrong, they 'could' be right but because they're f%^king stupid and you don't solve problems by wishing them away and shouting loudly."
"'Climate Denialists ( Santorum etc ) should be put up against the wall and shot.' There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. This comment tells you all you need to know about the political ideology of Environmentalism."
The part that Micallef complains that the cite was not fully given:
"Climate Denialists ( Santorum etc ) should be put up against the wall and shot. Not because they are wrong, they 'could' be right but because they're f%^king stupid and you don't solve problems by wishing them away and shouting loudly."
The problem here is that the original commenter would surely consider anyone who is skeptical about AGW to be, by definition, stupid.
And really, hasn't that dishonest James Hansen *already* called for criminal sanctions against anyone against a massive restructuring of society to combat global warming? So Andy Roid McUser is not really breaking new ground in calling for the death of his opponents. In fact, most of history has seen human society governed by this very principle.
There is a significant cost to reducing our CO2 levels down to what is wanted by greenpeace et al. It will be very disruptive to economies and society at large.
Doing it 'just in case' seems a bit misguided, as it will be tremendously expensive. Stifling alternate points of view with ad hominem attacks seems a bit dodgy too.
And yes, shoot the stupid, good show.
So in 1999 Greenpeace said: "If current trends continue, and computer models are accurate in their broad details, Arctic winter ice cover will be much thinner in a greenhouse future, and almost non-existent in the summer. These dramatic changes would have enormous implications for Arctic plants, animals, and inhabitants."
What has happened since?
The declining trend not only continued after 1999 it has accelerated.
If Lewis Page wants to play a blame game he might have more luck going after various skeptics who denied that Arctic sea ice would decline.
Truly, I really do. If this is the level of skill expected of science writers today, I've got whole stables of 10 year olds who could churn out this rubbish 24/7.
Aside from the fact the author is looking at one small location at one time, which clearly invalidates everything he says, let's throw in a bit more context for the textually impaired
That is the sea ice, as of two days ago, sourced from the same blokes who are cited in the report. The Bering Sea is that little strip on the top left, and as you can see, is the only bit of sea ice showing any kind of growth, being dwarfed by the losses in the rest of the arctic, particularly on the pacific side.
I think the most ridiculous part of this story is the quotation from the NSIDC even explains that the build up of ice in the bering sea is a direct consequence of ice further north melting. The ice has melted, been blown south and then physically come together to form new ice packs, blocking further movement. Now, you might think this is alright, that it's just ice moving, but you have to bear in mind this is the peak of the ice season (the "melt" season started exactly a week ago). Think about what would happen if those floating ice packs hadn't re-frozen, blocking the sea, and anyone with half a brain should immediately see how catastrophic even a single season of above-average melting can be.
I know you're a bunch of anti-scientific dogmatists over in the el reg "science" department, but really, you could at least try and pretend you're not just shitting on the keyboard and passing it off as work. If you'd just stuck to bashing Greenpeace this would've been a heartily entertaining bit of gutter journalism that we could all get behind.
Also, records didn't "begin" in 1979, that's just when precise, daily satellite recordings began. We can gauge the minima/maxima of ice going back millenia.
Firstly, yes, the current extent of Bering ice being greater than the median is less than the loss compared to the median in other parts especially the bit over Scandinavia (I take your "particularly on the pacific side" remark to actually mean particularly the Atlantic, since the Bering Sea IS the Pacific side). However the difference is quite small, not "dwarfed". Also, I don't know why you are pointing this out as a flaw in the article, since the article specifically mentions this, and mentions that the current total extent is still less than the median over 30 years.
Second, the article mentions that the Bering ice is there mainly because of wind pressure pushing it through the Bering Strait, that doesn't mean the ice is melting further North. If this were the case, I would expect to see gaps in the ice just North of the Bering Strait, but there aren't any gaps there or indeed anywhere else. Of course maybe this is just because there isn't the detail to see how closely packed together the ice is etc, but from the picture you posted only, there is no basis for your assertion.
Is this actually a bad news story for the 'hippies'?
Or is the Bering Sea full of ice that ought to be part of the Arctic sea ice that has broken away due to excessive melting?
In other words is this extra ice (hippie doom mongers fundamentally wrong about what's going on up there) or just ice that's in the wrong place (hippie doom mongers only wrong in this one prediction about the Bering Sea, and possibly only wrong this year)?
It's a symptom of how idiotic this debate has become. Given we have only a paltry 30 years of records, it's IMPOSSIBLE to say what is "normal" and what isn't. It's impossible to see cycles of natural variation too, of which this is almost certainly one.
So all of this ice is melting/ice isn't melting being good/bad is just so much complete and utter bollocks cooked up by the Greenies to give you all something to be fearful of. Not that you should be in any case, because melting Arctic ice won't make a bit of difference to sea levels, which themselves are not increasing over and above their four hundred year trend.
Thanks for listening.
So with a "paltry" 30 years of data it's impossible to say what's normal but it is possible for you to conclude it's "almost certainty" part of a natural cycle? How convenient.
Plus a little "Arctic ice won't make a bit of difference to sea levels" strawman.
You must be a climate skeptic right?
First, it isn't a straw man. It's a fact. You can't argue (1) that ice loss is significant but that (2) looking at sea level data, nothing has happened, unless you're suggesting that the sea level rise is "missing". The two contradict one another. So, no, sea level rise is not above trend, regardless of what's happening in the Arctic. Therefore, whatever's happening there has made ****-all difference to sea level and if it makes ****-all difference to sea level, we shouldn't give a flying **** what its magnitude is.
Secondly, I conclude it's natural very easily by simply reducing the argument to what is more likely. Is it more likely the oscillations of sea ice are caused by a climate that varies naturally, as all historic data shows it is currently varying well within, or is it more likely that a small segment of that variation, almost exactly the same in length and magnitude as a previous segment of that variation, this time has a different cause?
Talk about Cherry Picking. You catastrophists are the loons here, not us sceptics.
You are correct, melting ice does not make a difference to sea level, as the volume is equal to the volume teh ice already displaced.
Except when it is on land.
Conveniently ignoring the thermal expansivity of water (warm water is less dense so takes up more volume)
Conveniently ignoring the evidence from the last ice age when sea levels were MUCH lower because of all the water locked up as ice on top of land masses.
Not to mention that melting ice in the Artic would (an arguably is already starting to show signs of) alter ocean currents, which in turn cause mixing, which brings nutrients to the surface for phytoplankton, fuelling the entire ocean food chain. Also not mentioning that sea ice, which is white, reflect more heat back into space than water, which is dark and less reflective, thus acting as a negative feedback to warming. Also not mentioning the historicl records of sea ice extent which go back hundreds of years, or the proxy measurements of temperature that can be made from studying isotope ratios in ice cores or any such hard science done by intelligent people who know what they are talking about and do the work because they have a genuine interest in the subject.
No, you must be right. We're all saved. Hooray! Lets burn more stuff safe in the knowledge that we can't possibly be fucking up the planet for ourselves and future generations. After all, anyone who disagrees with you is just a stupid hippy, right?
Check out the satellite photos at the NASA website over the last 30 years ... September ice minimums in the Arctic are nearly half what they were 30 years ago. Photos don't lie. Meanwhile the Antarctic is not growing as the deniers claim - some of it is, most of it is not.
Again, go look at the photos ... you don't need 1000 years data to know loosing half the arctic ice within 30 years is not normal. Heck, the Inuit natives will tell you that.
E = 2000l * 40MJ = 80GJ
A realistic average value for sun power per m^2 is about 50W, around the clock.
So, you need
A = 80GJ/(365d*86400s/d*50W) = 51 m^2
of solar receivers to gather the energy, which will be stored in 80°C hot water.
Water will be useful down to a temperature of 30°C, so the useful temp delta is 50°C/50°K. H20 will store about 4KJ/K/l.
So you need
V = 80GJ/(50K*4000J/Kl) = 4E5 l = 400 m^3.
Thats a cube of 7,3m length. Which must be isolated by about 50cm of mixed concrete (German: Porenbeton). You will lose about 2% of energy per month. Good enough to heat your house during wintertime.
My house is 4.2m wide by about 25m long so lets lose the width of 0.5m for the walls so I end up with
a tank of water 3.2m wide by 24m long... although that includes the garden so lets say the tank is going to be 19m long and I end up with a depth of 6.5m or there abouts
Lets change that into old money I basically need a hole dug under my house 21 feet deep, then lined with concrete and filled with water. then hope my house does'nt fall into it
Wheres the JCB icon ?
Rather more useful would be a smaller version. Two or three tons of water could easily be stored under many houses without the need for massive excavation and new foundations. Together with an intelligent distribution system this heat store could be used for load shedding, thus increasing the overall efficiency of electricity generation. Equally it might mop up some of the wasteful variability that wind energy is going to introduce.
Heat pumps are quite effective when the temperature difference is modest. A COP of 3 or 4 is easily possible and they are not that expensive. So combining a heat pump for heating and nuclear plant to make electricity can provide an efficient and inexpensive way to heat homes.
I know that not all houses do have a 50m^2 garden, which could be excavated. But there are also a lot of public areas (parks, parking spaces, schoolyards, office "view areas"), which could be used for hot water storage tanks.
Looking at modern construction sites, it appears as if they could easily dig ten meters deeper than they already do. Of course, exceptions apply (granite doesn't like to be digged).
My guess is that hot water will be a major component of electricity storage, as it is politically much more convenient than flooding nice-looking valleys for gravity-energy storage.
Finally, many ridiculous-sounding ideas will be much less ridiculous when 500 million Chinese people have the same wealth (and buy oil) as Europeans and Americans.
Alarmist environmentalist warnings/doomsday prophecies aren't doing any of us any good. In fact, their being proved wrong will just cause people to carry on as they were and forget about the whole 'environment thing' (cry wolf, anyone?).
On the other hand, sticking your head in the sand and ignoring everything isn't particularly helpful either.
And let's not get started on just obliterating anything and everything in your path to make the extra buck, errrr, sorry, make that increase shareholder value. Does anyone still believe that greed is good?
So where does all this leave us? You really don't need scientific proof to act in a fair, civilised and responsible way, and to have a little bit of solidarity between different parts of the world and between generations.
Actually, it's remarkably easy:
- Try not to buy stuff that has travelled halfway across the earth
- Eat locally produced food as much as possible
- Conserve energy on general principle; just don't waste it, is all
- Clean up after yourself
- Don't make the other parts of the world pay for your lifestyle
- Don't make future generations pay for your lifestyle: making a mess now and have your kids clean it up just isn't very nice
- Cheap flights ARE too good to be true
I'm sure that in any given situation anybody with half a mind can figure out what is the, or at least a, right way to act. Spotting what is most clearly wrong is even easier.
Everything has a price, and somebody somewhere is (or will be) paying it. The question is who, and is that right? The answers are there, but of course you have to want to know them.
".....Does anyone still believe that greed is good?...." Yes. Greed is the underlying basic emotion behind all technical developments, either through the "we'll make some money out of this" to the "I'll make my and/or others' lives easier through this". Did you go to work today because you felt you were meeting some higher calling or because the pay means you can afford the rent, which means you have a nice place to live, nicer than you strictly require, with electricity and plumbed water, probably with a fridge and computer, when you could survive in a hut with a bucket,? How about the clothes you own, do you actually only have the minimum you require or is there environmental "guilt" lurking in your wardrobe? Think carefully about your own motivations in life.
When humans switched from hunting-gathering to farming it wasn't because they made an indepth study of the options and chose the one with a higher moral value, it was because greed drove them to producing more food in a controlled manner rather than having to chase it around. Greed invented the wheel - it gave us the ability to move things more easily so we could spend more time doing the other stuff we wanted to do. You have turned greed into a negative emotion, forgetting the fact that we are all just animals underneath, and without those base animal emotions (greed, lust, even sloth), we wouldn't have left the caveman stage of development. This push to label all human activity that produces advancements as guilt-laden is amusingly silly.
Then we get onto the real fun. I'm sorry, but I can't help but point out the sillyness in some of your well-meaning suggestions:
".... - Try not to buy stuff that has travelled halfway across the earth...." So, what about developing countries, which need to export stuff to us in the developed World to get the money to invest in such basics as healthcare and education? Without them being able to export to us, you condemn them to an awful live of poverty and disease for ever. Not very caring or at all admireable. What is your option, just aid packages? Aid packages do not spur development, they ensure dependency. Trade with other countries is also actually the best way to ensure good relations, as keeping resources from a nation can drive wars (consider the Japanese and their requirement for oil in 1941).
".....- Eat locally produced food as much as possible...." So what about Fairtrade products? Those come from abroad, and they directly support the development of poor farmers. Are you suggesting we ignore them, just cut those poorer nations adrift, so you can feel a bit better about eating "green"? Or is it only wrong if I buy food shipped from another developed country? Are you saying I shouldn't buy Greek produce to help the Greek people get out of there economic mess, you want me to deliberately turn my back on them as this is somehow morally "better"?
"....Spotting what is most clearly wrong is even easier....." Can I suggest you spend more time searching and less time regurgitating spoonfed ideals and soundbites.
Human motivation is not at all about greed. To a point it is about enough to survive. After that point it is about being able to attract a mate. After that it is about being accepted by your chosen social circle. Humans are driven to feel useful and needed, that is as much as basis for working as any other. The unemployed suffer depression because they feel useless, not because they feel greedy.
Everything Libertarians think they understand about humans is an outgrowth of their own stunted personalities and lack of belonging in any meaningful sense. To them, money is all that can matter because money is all they can reliably gain and control.
The complaint is NOT that you characterise Greenpeace as hippies. Everybody knows that Greenpeace are hippies. The complaint is that you characterise the entire scientific community - the experts who almost unanimously support anthropogenic climate change - as hippies.
In fact, it's not really a complaint any more. People long ago stopped engaging you in anything like a debate. All you get now is burbling "hear hear" from the reactionary climate unaccepters* and outright derision from the scientists and humble lay people.
(* is that more tolerable than "deniers"? I don't want to set anybody's twisted knickers on fire)
from the source you are quoting (national snow and ice data centre) analysis on April 4th http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
"Ice extent in the Barents Sea remained well below normal. In both the Barents and Kara seas, temperatures remained above normal by 4 to 6 degrees Celsius (7 to 11 degrees Fahrenheit)."
which in reg-speak becomes
"all-time record high levels last month"
"(* is that more tolerable than "deniers"? I don't want to set anybody's twisted knickers on fire)"
Since it's obvious that the pros (Lewis, Andrew) are smart enough to know that what they are writing is shit the correct term is trolls. I'm buggered if I understand most of the commenters, I think they're probablyt just loonies.
So on average we're the same re ice cover. Bad news for polar bears, good news for penguins! Averagely OK doesn't mean OK on average.
Don't quite get the logic here. Overall Arctic ice is down, but in one place it's up, which means that the doomsayers were full of it? Kind of like me turning on my shower and denying a drought because there's plenty of water in my bathromm isn't it?
"....Kind of like me turning on my shower and denying a drought because there's plenty of water in my bathroom isn't it?" Ah, but is there a drought, or is it that the system of water provision that supplies your house cannot provide enough water without additonal cost? The planet's surface is approximately 71% covered in oceans and seas - there is more water than land, and definately more than enough water to supply all our needs, but only if we spend time and money on developing systems to supply clean water to all.
The current hosepipe bans in the South of the UK is because the water companies are worried that they cannot meet demand with the current system of resevoirs and pipes. There is more than enough water in the UK, it's just most of it is in Wales or Scotland., and we never developed a UK national system of pipes to distribute it. We could do so, it's just the cost would be prohibitive and there is little political will to mess with the privitised water companies. Other areas of the planet import all their water, examples being Los Vegas. We pipe oil across thousands of miles of desert and mountains, there is no real technological reason why we can't pipe water to the middle of the Sahara if required. There is just no political will to do so.
Similarly, all the people in the World could be crowded onto the Isle of Wight, making a mockery of the idea of over-population. It's just we like having a certain amount of resources each, such as space, but you want me to reduce my use of resources because you state that the current rate of use is unsustainable. You are refusing to consider that I could use alternative resources, or that your prediction of doom'n'gloom is wrong, you simply expect me to adjust my useage when you are unable to convince me that you are actually and undeniably correct in your predictions. When emprical evidence starts to poke holes in your predictions, telling me I just must believe is not helping. If there is a drought, it would seem to be in the ability of the AGW crowd to form a reasoned argument that stand up to scrutiny.
You're not applying "scrutiny". The scrutiny is applied by other scientists (including those who did the work that Lewis has befuddled in this ridiculous article) and they overwhelmingly agree with AGW. What _you_ are doing is demanding impenetrable proof in order to obfuscate and procrastinate. It's an age old piece of sophistry that was perfected by the people who argued that smoking is harmless and extended to the absurd by Creationists. "Can't prove your argument 100%? Then I choose to believe an alternative that can't be proven even 1%."
(yes yes ... I know ... you're going to get all red-cheeked and indignant at yet another comparison to the tobacco lobby and fruitloop fundamentalists but I'm afraid the comparison is pretty water tight ... at least to the extent that nobody has yet demonstrated any definite holes in it)
(see what I did there?)
"....The scrutiny is applied by other scientists .... and they overwhelmingly agree with AGW...." Sorry, that bit of AGW bilge has long since been debunked. Especially when the IPCC was publishing reports with scientists' names on the reports that hadn't agreed to their use or the content, and then refusig to remove those names even when the scientists said they believed the complete opposite of the report contents! There are a massive number of scientists that DO NOT agree with the AGW screed, and that number seems to be growing daily, to the point where it looks more like the majority of scientists DISAGREE with the AGW schpiel. You really need to go watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle". The whole ice myth is mentioned one minute in.
Bizzare. You claim the IPCC is "publishing reports with scientists names [...] that hadn't agreed to their use"(*) then you recommend that we watch "the Great Global Warming Swindle" that includes contributions from scientsts who complain that they were "completely misrepresented" by the program.
((*) by the way, ).
"....The scrutiny is applied by other scientists .... and they overwhelmingly agree with AGW...." Sorry, that bit of AGW bilge has long since been debunked. Especially when the IPCC was publishing reports with scientists' names on the reports that hadn't agreed to their use or the content, and then refusig to remove those names even when the scientists said they believed the complete opposite of the report contents! There are a massive number of scientists that DO NOT agree with the AGW screed, and that number seems to be growing daily, to the point where it looks more like the majority of scientists DISAGREE with the AGW schpiel. You really need to go watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle". The whole ice myth is mentioned one minute in. Four minutes in we get the debunking of the "all scientists agree" crap. This isn't new, the documentary is years old, so it's even more embarassing for you to be trotting out the "scientists overwhelmingly agree" male bovine manure.
If I had a penny for every time I'd posted this ... I'd have three pennies.
From this review in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US)
"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. "
You can call it bullshit if you like. You've got bald UPPER CASE assertions. I have published statistics. Bald assertions lose every single time.
So, you mean the report that only asked the people that agreed with what the "researchers" wanted to hear? The "climate researchers most actively publishing" being the group with the most to gain (funding) from the maintaining the AGW myth? The grouping that neatly excludes all the other science groups with conflicting views, such as astronomers (global wobbles and ice ages didn't come from the AGW crowd)? Then yes, I call that bullshit, and it was being called just that years ago when "The Great Global Warming Swindle" came out. You obviously have not watched it, but then that's not surprising. I find most AGW alarmists just as unwilling to view anything that doesn't match their blinkered views.
Area does not equal volume.
Anyone who knows what they are talking about (and not deliberately trying to mislead people) will tell you that the important number is the volume of sea ice, no the area. As old, thick, sea ice breaks up under rising temperatures (fingers-in-the-ears-la-la-la-it's-not-happening aside), the smaller chunks spread out because ice floats. To illustrate this, imagine an average ice cube of 1 inch per side floating in a bath tub of ice-cold water. The 'area' of ice in this case is 1 square inch. Now smash the ice into chunks 1/10 of an inch across, and throw these into your bathtub. The 'area' is now 10 square inches.
A seasonal increase in new thin sea ice can be very misleading, as it all melts come the arctic summer, whereas old thick ice does not.
All in all, I have to say I am becoming very disillusioned with coverage of climate science by El Reg. Lewis clearly has some sort of agenda, as can be seen by his cherry-picking of fringe science and partial stories which appear superficially to support an argument against the existence of AGW. What is missing is any coverage of what is on the other side of the metaphorical balance, which is a mass of well researched correctly peer-reviewed hard science that he conveniently ignores because it does not fit. Who is paying you, Lewis? Cui bono?
Exactly! What is even more fun is the trauma it seems to cause some of the posters here that they actually are expected to DEBATE the issues, rather than just have the sceptics accept their word as gospel. Sceptics usually share a common distrust of those that insist there must not be discussion, it makes them even more stubborn in their determination to find holes in the arguments being rammed down their throats. When the rammers get caught being economic with the truth (such as the IPCC shambles), it is siezed on by the scpetics as reason to look for more holes. But the really smart take advantage of both sides to sell advertising space by stoking the fires of debate.
This is not the way to win friends and influence people. From the frame of mind I'm in when I read these articles advertisers would really not want their wares linked to such extremes of digust. Lets just say next time I see a HTC in another setting I'm likely to sneer without realising why :)
1. The Bering Sea is a small sea. What's happening all over the Arctic? It's the aggregate that matters.
2. Sea ice, as in frozen sea, is irrelevant as regards global sea levels. On the other hand, if this ice came from glaciers, it is bad news. I imagine there's an Exxon-funded study somewhere which shows the rise in the land as the glaciers melt, due to reduced weight, will exactly cancel out the rise in sea level.
You completely miss the whle point - is any decline in sea ice actually through man-made causes or simply part of natural warming outside our control? That is the real question. Simply saying "hey, the planet's warming up, it MUST be our fault!" without providing unequivical evidence is patently silly. And, no, you lot haven't even come close to anything like unequivical evidence.
If you are going to make a prediction about "one small specific location", you'd better be prepared to receive the criticism when your prediction turns out to be crap.
Otherwise it seems you want it both ways: us to be scared and do something about each and every little prediction, whilst at the same time saying "well, it was only a little prediction of a tiny little piece of the Earth" then the prediction turns out to be false.
No one (at least no climate scientist) would deny that. It has not warmed in over 10 years, but that's a trifle of time. It has warmed since the turn of the century, for sure. There some graphs / science that suggest cooling for the next decade, but we will have to wait.
A warming earth would mean less ice, but less ice does not support the case that humans are the cause for its loss.
Whether or not its CO2 is the cause of global warming is the issue. There are lots of reputable scientists who doubt the Anthropogenic cause of the warming. Nomenclature has now changed to be future proof: 'Global Warming' has been replaced by 'Climate Change'.
Even if CO2 is the cause of global warming, we have little control over it with existing technologies, other than nuclear power. No country, even Denmark, has made any real progress with renewable energy.
"It" has not warmed in over 10 years? What is "it" then?
Earth has warmed statistically significantly in the last 10 years and the only graph deniers seem able to find not showing warming is a hacked up lower atmosphere temp records being pushed through models designed to plot earth and sea temps as well as atmosphere temps.
When you include all required measurements (land, ocean, air) warming is incontrovertible.
I think from the number of trite phrases cobbled together to form one meaningless whole this again has to be a troll.
Denmark is a particularly amusing case of "greenness". Denmark wants to have "renewable energy", but not nasty and polluting gas/coal/nukes. Their problem is they can't produce enough energy from windfarms and the like, so the use "biomass-powered stations". When a hippy gives you that one, prod them into admitting what a "biomass-powered station" is - it's BURNING waste. And yes, that burning of waste is DIRTIER than modern gas-burning stations.....
the danish have the most windmills, the most pollution for energy production due to non-existant storage, and some of the highest energy prices...
Denmark is the perfect example of the complete failure of wind (and thus even more solar) on bigger scale (over 5%)
As far as I can find, absolutely *none* of the mainstream media have covered the report issued by the (UK) Met Office last week, "Industrial pollution linked to 'natural' disasters" (full report published in 'Nature', as "Aerosols implicated as a prime driver of twentieth-century North Atlantic climate variability").
Quote from one of the authors :
"Until now, no-one has been able to demonstrate a physical link to what is causing these observed Atlantic Ocean fluctuations, so it was assumed they must be caused by natural variability.
"Our research implies that far from being natural, these changes could have been largely driven by dirty pollution and volcanoes. If so, this means a number of natural disasters linked to these ocean fluctuations, such as persistent African drought during the 1970's and 80's, may not be so natural after all.
...When industrial pollution peaked over the Atlantic, this effect played a big role in cooling the ocean beneath; as pollution was cleaned up - for example after the clean air legislation of the 90's - the seas warmed."
But then the Met Office are obviously such a bunch of HIPPIES...and obviously *we* couldn't possibly be responsible for droughts that killed millions of people... that would be too much for *some people* to accept.
Where did the hand grenade icon go, cos that's what I'd like to do to climate change deniers.
1) Your claim of "£250m per year" is demonstrably utter BS. They get about £15m p.a. for climate research, (up from £13m two years ago), according to reasonably-reliable sources :
2) All climate research depends on "modelling", because unlike most scientific research, we cannot repeat the experiment a thousand times to see whether a different outcome occurs when the conditions are changed. We don't have hundreds of planets to experiment on (or a time machine so we can change the past and see how it affects the present).
So if your disagreement is based on the fact that it is a model, then you seem to have a fundamental problem understanding the scientific method involved, and you may as well just stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la la la la it's not happening" for all the wisdom that you're bringing to this debate.
Maybe in your head, every piece of evidence is simply a scam by someone-or-other to make some 'profit' out of 'scaremongering', while the money that companies such as ExxonMobil pour into supporting 'sceptics' is just their way of being philanthropic, and they have *no vested interest* in persuading the world to continue using their products. No doubt if this was the 60s or 70s you'd say that lung cancer boffins only do it because they profit from "maintaining the fraud" that cigarettes are bad for you, whilst those nice tobacco companies are simply fighting for the little man's right to live life however he wants. Personally, I simply don't believe any of that.
At the end of the day, if the 'climate change lobby' are wrong, all that really happens is some people (different people from the current industrial-military status quo) make a few bucks for a while.
However, if the 'denial lobby' are wrong, millions of people (and animals) will die. And when people like yourself blithely say, in a coded way, "well I don't care if millions of people die, I want to keep my toys", I consider you nothing less than utter scum.
Total operating expenditure from the Met Office is £197m in 2010/2011. This does not count the extra cash from the government to purchase Yet Another Vastly Expensive Computer.
"All climate research depends on "modelling", because unlike most scientific research, we cannot repeat the experiment a thousand times to see whether a different outcome occurs when the conditions are changed. "
Precisely. It depends on modelling. And models are useless. End of story. Models have NOTHING to do with the Scientific Method. They are toys. They are verified or rejected by comparing them with REAL EMPIRICAL DATA. Even Phil Jones says they are all wrong:
So why on Earth are you whining at me for pointing it out???!
".....these changes could have been largely driven by dirty pollution and volcanoes...." So, was it us, or mainly the volcanoes, or would the same effect have happened under just the influence of the volcanoes alone? Last time I checked, we had zero control over volcanoes. You score a big, fat fail.
I remmber the good old days when the Reg was infested by BOFH and not Warmista's, bring back the hacked company lift shaft I say.
Simple test whats TCP in TCP/IP?
Posting A/C because I don't want the snot goblins (rubbish Trolls) to snot to much.
What part of "Computing is a Science" did you fail to read in my last post. Do you know any computing science degrees that fail to examine the OSI networking model in excruciating detail, including the kludge that is TCP/IP and it's brothers UDP, ICMP etc.
If you think TCP/IP is "technical", good luck to you. Since I'm fairly sure you're nothing but a climate denier troll, good riddance while I'm at it.
It's darkly amusing to see non-scientists staring into their own grave and not feeling the hand at their back. In case you weren't aware, "global warming" quickly became a an erroneous and misleading phrase once the complexity of the changes in the global climate became more obvious; thus "climate change." Some places get warmer (the U.S. this past winter) and some places get colder (Europe - dramatically colder and with higher precip this winter). Most of the comments here are astonishingly simplistic and uninformed. As they say in the southern part of the U.S... "Y'all need a better education....."
The snowlevels compared to this time last year are massive, even had knee deep powder today following last nights storms.
The overall base depth means skiing to 1300m whereas last year at this time it was meadows at 1850m and sludge to ski in.
The climate varies year on year, not sure it means we are heading for doom and gloom but the skiing this year has been great.
Chill dudes, don't worry about it, old mama Gaia will sort it out, we're all just stardust man, billion year old carbon, here today somewhere else tomorrow it's all just karma, bad shit happens, so just sit back, light up and let it be, we are golden and with all this new warmth and sun, we can all get down and party back in the garden.
So as a planet we are glacial and inter glacial; there have been four known periods of glacial activity – based on the science this is either a 100,000 year cycle or a 400,000 year problem depending on your reading of the Milankivitch cycles of Earth axis movement. Right now we are 10,000 years post ice age and approximately 40,000 – 50,000 from the next. We cannot stop the warming of the planet and we cannot stop the cooling. Now that said, are we helping to nudge along the heating? Yes our carbon emissions are contributing the acceleration of the process. This warming is a process we are going through as the Earth heats up due to the inter glacial cycle it is now a question about how warm we get and how much we contribute to it. There have periods in our Earth history where we had significantly higher carbon levels too; long before our rodent ancestors existed.
Will our heating delay the onset of the next ice age?… good question; possibly. Will we be able to reduce our contribution to the heating process? No. Global economics and political interests will not permit us too. We can only hope we develop reliable, consistent, clean energy at some point in the future to limit our part in the warming.
But as with everything in Earth’s history it can be measured in the slow march of time, and eventually the glaciers will loom on the horizon 50,000’ish years from now and start their inevitable march South once more.
I welcome our wooly mammoth overlords arrival.
... what about the Lewis Page worshippers? How many of the poor deluded souls are there out there?
Listen guys, the clue is in the working title - GLOBAL Climate Change. See? It's about a rising trend in the AVERAGE temperature of the PLANET which is apparent if you compare decadal chunks of time; nothing to do with localised increases or decreases in one location in a few successive years. Stop slavering over month to month changes that appear to go the "wrong" way. Learn some basic statistics. Read the Feb 2012 edition of "significance", the journal of the American Statistical Association and the Royal Statistical Society.
I did a few fag packet calcs and the 400m^3 of water is going to need approximately 380 tonnes of concrete as insulation to store a years solar colllcted heat. Thats around 780 tonnes of mass that must be supported on foundations so yet more concrete. All in a package about 8m cubed. Who has the money to invest in that much space and material to store energy for a year, without the absurd cost of 50m^2 of solar thermal panels.
I get the idea of solar preheating in the winter and solar for summer hot water use, and in time it will even become genuinely cost effective as energy prices rise but no on the scale suggested.
Also to my knowledge only Calor gas used offer a stirling engine product in the UK because only when the fuel is as prohibitively expensive as off grid LPG does the capital and maintenance overhead of micro combined heat and power get close to being economic. Checking their website even they don't offer it anymore.
The problem with the green argument for me is they have problems but no feasible solutions. Until industrial electricity storage makes nuclear and renewables technically feasible absolute alternatives to fossil fuel then it will probably be easier to deal with the consequences than prevent them.
LOL at the Register editors becoming climate change deniers, which is clearly illustrated by the nature of this post. The savvy editors here are arguing against 99.99% of scientists on an issue of science. Want to appease your corporate advertisers much? This post illustrates a very "establishment " friendly pattern for El Reg. regarding its reporting.
What I'd like to understand is this.
Every year the earth gets bombarded by solar radiation. Does this not in and of itself cause the earth (as a whole) to increase in temperature? Is there some mechanism whereby the earth releases energy back into space? Is there data on what the net balance is?
Also, given that the earth's climate is changing, and given that our (humans) actions do have a statistically significant impact on that change ... why is it a bad thing? Is it because weather events are going to get more extreme? Are we not going to be able to cope? Perhaps we shall.
I'm not saying that I don't believe that humans can damage the planet, I think it has been shown again and again that industry has contaminated and polluted our soil, sea and air.
What I personally am skeptical about is our ability to disrupt the entire earth's climate to such a degree that we will be adversely affected by it on an annual basis (I'm talking catastrophic global calamity here). If all we're talking about is some more severe storms, a bit hotter here, a bit colder there, some rise in sea levels then so what? We'll adapt. Why won't we adapt?
I accept the science, I don't accept the policies advocated as a result. I live in Ireland, most people here whine about climate change, yet hardly anyone backs nuclear power because it's "evil". Enough said.
Is there some mechanism whereby the earth releases energy back into space?
Sun: very hot transmits heat to the earth that is hot (IR)
Earth: hot planet transmits heat to very cold space(IR)
Now the reason why temperatures do not rise a lot in day and cool a lot at night(>50) is that parts of the atmosphere reflects IR.
The 4 major gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide,methane and ozone. Clouds also reflect heat.
The basic argument about climate change
Sun cools by radiating heat to a colder body(Earth)
Earth cools by radiating heat to a colder body(Space)
Certain parts of the atmosphere slow down the cooling. (And stabilize the temperatures)
Humans have increased the ability to slow down the cooling(more CO2 in the air)
Therefore more energy is retained and temperatures go up.
what makes it more complex:
-global dimming (mainly for particulate pollution from commercial airflight) dampening the heating effect
-solar activity influencing cloud formation
-albedo changes due to humans development
people still saying we couldn't possibly influience the climate are nothing short of batshit retarded....we've changed the WHOLE surface of our planets and using up ALL its resources in a couple of centuries.....due to our development we currenty have the biggest wave of species extinction going on in 65 million years!!!!! (that comet that wiped the dino's)
our impact on our planet is very real, but that doesn't change the fact GP are scum that abuse the fuck out of our issues to steal cash from people by using very very bad science, or flatout lying...And of course actively preventing solutions to problems they profit from
Excellent questions! A summary of the accepted science is available from The Royal Society here: http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2010/climate-change-summary-science/ . I've read easier short documents but I think it sheds some light on your questions.
Like you, I find the taxation measures suspect. I don't agree with the simplification of climate change politics to the question of atmospheric CO2 alone (almost).
Enough said? I disagree... The politics of nuclear power in Ireland are understandably clouded by the safety record of that industry and the WMD industry in Cumbria. If the government of the UK are so committed to nuclear power and confident in its safety, perhaps they could site a reactor in Battersea power station. Pigs might fly! (Yes, Pink Floyd reference equals suspect hippy ; )
Is there any organisation with the technical and ethical credentials to run nukes in YOUR back yard? No corporation I know of could be trusted.
The government are encouraging us turkeys to vote for Christmas on May 31st and cannot be trusted. You might think it's in you short to medium term interests to go along with their blackmail but it is not and anyway, that's not the point. This is not about us. It's the same as the climate issue. Would we be able to look our great grandchildren in the eye? This is personal; this is survival. Leave the car at home if you can and take a walk, and vote no in the fiscal referendum! Please?
safety record? no energy generation makes fewer deaths then nuclear, and that's with 3 apocalyptic (according to GP and other scum) events included....
in the meantime a few years of placing PV-cells in belgium has already claimed more lives than 40 years of nukes (getting 55 to 82% of power from nukes)......which caused: zero deaths
GE can put an S-prism in my backyard TOMOROW, as then I'll be part of the solution (co2 free power using nuclear waste as fuel, leaving nearly no waste), and not part of the problem like greenpeace and most "green" parties
The Planet has mechanisms whereby it can cope with changes to the environment. Those mechanisms operate on a scale of thousands of years. Human impacts are on a scale of 10s of years; the Planet's natural coping mechanisms will not be able to respond as they have in the past. How the Planet will respond to human impact is not well known. So how much risk are you willing to tolerate?
Hey Lewis ? You great futurist might remind this one :
Fukushima's toxic legacy: Ignorance and fear"
Hysteria rages unchecked as minor incident winds down
By Lewis Page • Posted in Physics, 22nd March 2011 13:49 GMT
ok, did I say that anyone died in Fukushima ?
Yes, Nuclear "energy" is more green than most of other fossile energy.
But also potentially more dangerous.
When Lewis wrote his article saying that this was a minor incident winding down, he was completely wrong. This was a very serious incident growing and growing.
He wrote a series of article saying it was impossible that only iodine would be release and that it was impossible that cesium would be release.
Those prooved to be completely false.
Then, because this industry is potentially very dangerous, we have to be on the knees on the enterprise to be sure they keep on improving their security standards. Exactly the contrary of this Mr Agenda.
Unlike from the actual massive earthquake and tsunami...
I completely disagree with Lewis' stance on AGW but that doesn't make him wrong on nuclear power.Nuclear is so far the safest power source per watt we've ever discovered to my knowledge. If anything I think you've just made Lewis' headline point with your own hysterically toned posts.
... I think it is foolish for you to take Greenpeace's word that they are hippies. The logical flaw of "Greenpeace says that its members are hippies ergo it must be true" is the same as "Greenpeace says that the world is going to end in 2011 ergo we are no longer here".
I'm sure Greenpeace likes to think of itself as a hippie organisation. I tend to think of them more as eco-terrorists, willing to impose their beliefs on others at all costs. Frankly, they are the man.
I don't work for Greenpeace, but I am proud to be a hippie and wear that label as a badge of honor. Hippies are idealists who care about changing the world, not about accumulating as much money and as many material things as possible. Better a hippie than a welfare leech like Schmate Middleton who does nothing and lives off her country's taxpayers.
An analogy to the argument that climate deniers raise about the ice. It is not the surface area that is important- a large crust of ice can develop rapidly (and melt rapidly). Any discussion of ice that just focuses on ice surface area as an indicator of climate is shallow and clearly just intended as a headline grabber instead of a serious look at the science and reality of climate change. Every year the depth and volume of ice is decreasing, a sure indicator of long term changes in the climate of the planet.
I defy anyone with any critical faculties to look at this animation of long-term arctic ice and then say that the planet is cooling
As long term ice (perennial ice) declines, it shows that the climate has heated up since that ice was laid down. Basic logic. But apparently incomprehensible to the author of the article (and the editors of the Reg who keep putting out half-baked "science" articles- perhaps they should stick to reviewing laptops).
Anyone who thinks surface area is a good indicator, I am happy to swap a couple of square metres of gold leaf for your gold jewelry.
while, just as Mr Orlowski tends to do in his posts, you did manage to misunderstand - not to say willfully misrepresent - the NSIDC article to which you referred, but to which, for some strange reason, you failed to provide a link. But oddly enough, while like him you denigrate those concerned about climate change as «hippies» (a powerful argument, that !), you did not go quite so far as your comrade in arms, who recently on these pages (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/04/kareiva_new_environmentalism_essay/) evoked the stirring slogan : «Get rid of hippies, save the planet». Don't tell me you lack the courage of your convictions ?...
Here we are again. Foolish article written by an uninformed spinner. This headline makes it look like there is MORE ice when the ice being mentioned is break-up ice, created by warm conditions.
Keep your head in the sand, maybe then only the part of you that conceived this article will be exposed to the heat of global warming. This hippie believes in science, not in supporting oil companies who pay for slanted research.
I'm sorry , but the GP scum has demonstrated, and keeps demonstrated that the info they give out is in no way or manner fact checked, in stead they pick the material which they expect to scare people most, in a bid to extort cash from gullible people....
When it comes to green/eco organisations, Greenpeace is a cancer, and they are dangerous hypocrites as eg. when it comes to nuclear power their main (faulty) argument is:
-there's no solution for the waste
In the meantime they've been misappropriating gifts for DECADES boycotting the implementation of projects for this very goal!!!! (eg. the IFR project in the US, myrrha in belgium etc).
It's like a political party using "crime" as a main campaign point, and sneakingly getting the whole police force fire make sure they're "right".....absolute human filth imho
".....not too many Polar Bears in the Bering Sea...." Well, there originally weren't ANY polar bears in the Artic, they EVOLVED from land-based bears to fill a niche environment where they could dominate as top predator. Once upon a time there was another top predator called T-rex, which also evolved and took advantage of a set of environmental conditions. Another was the sabre-toothed cat. Both became extinct due to changes in the environment, nothing to do with SUVs or coal-fired power stations. If the polar bears don't evolve or migrate to new enviroments then they will go extinct, but who's to say that's not what would have happened even if man had never existed? Who are you to try and "stabilise" the World so the polar bears don't go extinct? Are you just wanting to play God or do you really think you're God?
"Matt, you are a joke ..." LOL, such a joke I see you are completely unable to counter any of the arguments presented. Am I surprised? Not really. Tell you what, just to make you keep your record of complete fail, let's see if you would like to explain the following:
1. How, if humans are solely responsible for "climate change", how humans are supposedly to blame for the roughly 300 years of warm weather in the Medievil period? No SUVs around in 950AD, and very little industrialisation taking place, yet that period saw temperatures higher than today (and the polar bears didn't all die out then either).
2. If "warming" is constant and irreversible, how come the Medievil warming period came to an end? How come it was followed by the Little Ice Age, with many European rivers iceing over?
3. If Artic ice is so important to the survival of the planet, how come it simply didn't exist between the end of the Karoo Ice Age and the current ice age cycle (which began 2-to-3 million years ago)?
Climate change is the only constant. In insisting that any change is caused by man and dooms us and the rest of the planet you sound just like some desperately guilt-ridden and very unscientific cult.
Matt, you are a joke.
"In insisting that any change is caused by man and dooms us and the rest of the planet you sound just like some desperately guilt-ridden and very unscientific cult."
Did I ever said that ?
So, claiming that I insisted that is a joke.
You are a joke. End of the story.
And still no counter. And again, not surprised. AGW is the insistance that human actions alone is causing global warming, and that if we don't massively reduce CO2 production we will cause a calamity that will trash the planet. Back to school for you, hippy, and this time make sure you sign up for science 101 and debating 101.
Really... There are those people who don't know the first thing about science but still go"I want it to be so, and therefore it must be so": This is known as wishful thinking. I really didn't think I would see much of that here, but then an article that screams "I am written by a Climate Skeptic" smacks me in face!
Anyone that actually has real expertise in climate modeling will tell you that global warming is coming, it is a horribly dangerous development and it is caused by man. Then a bunch of people come along and think they can figure out better without any expertise at all, just because they don't like the scientific results!
I thought this was a place were people would know the value of science, I seem to have been mistaken... :-(
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019