off topic. Nova show on glacial ice melting

And then it froze up and in the last 17 years global warming didn't happen and everyone went back to crafting theories but the politicians who figured there was money to be made.

Don't forget about the volcano in Antarctica. How much does this volcano contribute to ice melt?

"Made me think someone needs to invent a white long lasting inexpensive sea foam that reflects the sun and spray it across thousands of miles of ocean to keep the planet cool. Or maybe bioengineer plankton or whatever plant that grows in abundance when you dump iron ore powder in the ocean so that it still absorbs vast quantities of co2 but doesn't remove all the oxygen from the water."

sharkhunter, you unfortunately don't know what you are talking about.

Politicians don't know either.

BELIEVE the scientists.

I agree with Deogol. Massive ice meltage was supposed to happen by 2010, remember?

@Alucard- Now would e a good time to tell us about how "star dust" created life on earth.

@deogol -- I honestly don't understand what you're saying. All the individual words are standard English but their strung together in a way that doesn't appear to make sense, even if taken on its own terms.

Are you trying to say that global warming hasn't occurred over the past 17 years? Even AGW deniers admit that the temperature anomaly exists. They just attribute it to natural processes. Or are you claiming global warming will reverse in the next 17 years? If so, why?

As usual, reality is very complex and the degree of temperature increase exhibits variation. Doing the actual science is hard. But you seem to be falling down even on fundamentals.

@slick -- Arctic ice is shrinking, not Antarctic (more accurately the Antarctic is mixed). All of this makes reasonable sense in light of the best available climate models, though, as with everything in science, there is a lot of complexity.

@Zip-Ever heard of the Piri Reis map? It's a map from this Turkish admiral or cartographer that she's Antarctica without the ice cap. It's from the Middle Ages.

My ice is melted

@Slick -- the problem with alternative perspectives on global warming is that they fail on first principles. There is a core there that can't be refuted. Greenhouse gasses are accumulating. Unless something balances that accumulation they HAVE to cause warming. Arrhenius showed how much warming there has to be under simplistic conditions in the late 19th century and nobody has changed the fundamentals of the equation since then. The 20th-21st century models all attempt to integrate feedbacks, etc. That is difficult. But the core is there and is really solid. To deny it denies a LOT of science.

I've never seen an AGW denier actually put forward a simple answer to the fundamental issue. They always nitpick about minutia. If an AGW denier could say "yes, greenhouse gasses are accumulating snd that would be expected to raise temperatures, but here is what is compensating for their accumulation" I'd take that statement seriously.

An ice-free Antarctica in historical times is a non-starter. There is huge amounts of water in the ice sheet. Shorelines would have been fundamentally different. That ice has been there for millions of years.

It is all a natural cycle

I have to chime in here as well. The evidence for human-induced climate change is overwhelming and fairly well undeniable. There simply isn't any controversy among scientists who study the evidence.

Why do people without climate science degrees (lawyers, businessmen, economists, etc) think that they know more than the climate scientists themselves? It's the same with evolution. Non-scientists without any background in the appropriate field simply taking over the discussion.

^^^ It has been established that scientists manipulated data to further the man made global warming myth that is purely poitical. Can you say Al "this green energy crap will make me rich" Gore?

I thought it was fact that Arctic ice has melted a lot and it is known that we are at risk for additional melting and increased global sea levels. I thought most agreed that the planet has warmed up. I do know there are a few in denial. Some argue that the reasons are not mostly manmade. I heard there is a correlation between rising CO2 levels and increased global temperatures. I am not arguing that.

Alucard once again spouts his mouth off saying I do not know what I am talking about. I merely suggested doing something that takes engineering work to reverse the amount of ever increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere other than what many others propose doing which is to tax everyone which does nothing to reverse the trend. The CO2 still stays in the atmosphere.

I believe most of the information coming out in denial among people with big credentials know very little about climate.

I myself do not want to be taxed to death. However the evidence has been melting away and the oceans are becoming acidic and may not be able to absorb a whole lot more Co2 without a little help.

I can hope the correlation between high CO2 levels and increased global temperatures is not the main reason for the increased global temperatures but it is an amazing coincidence if it isn't. However I may not know all the details. Volcanic activity, other greenhouse gases that aren't mentioned, etc. could play a bigger role other than a trace gas called CO2. I'm not a climate scientist. I just do not want the planet to get warmer.

That's why I'm bringing in my Death Star. I can park in front of the planet blocking out sunlight. Problem solved. lol.

Mikey--

You may not make random statements without reputable sources to prove your point. Scientists are merely interested in what is true. If the data points to the Earth warming, then that's what the data shows.

This happens with the anti-evolution crowd all the time. They find something on the Internet and then somehow believe that they have the key to overthrowing all of paleontology/biology/genetics.

For anyone interested in discovering what the hell I was talking about with dumping iron ore powder in the ocean. Here is a link. en.wikipedia.org

Alucard might discover I do know something about what I am talking about.

The main problem with the method is that it could cause dead zones without oxygen.

Unlike most guys here, I have worked in the Arctic. I have seen the evidence. The Columbia Icefields glacier in Alberta's Rocky Mountains has retreated probably 4km just in my lifetime.

To deny global warming is just idiocy as is denying evolution pure idiocy.

We are all guilty and have been guilty since we evolved from apes to hominids.

You want to stop global warming? Stop driving your car and put guys like me out of business. Stop using electricity generated from coal-fired plants. Stop eating meat so we don't have all these hundreds of millions of domesticated animals farting deadly methane into the atmosphere. Stop buying cheap goods shipped around the world on ships using Bunker C, the single most polluting hydrocarbon fuel used world wide. Grow your own food. Don't fly in airplanes. Read books- don't watch TV or use computers and other electronic devices. It goes on and on.

How many people will live that lifestyle?

Suck it up. Global warming is here. It will not go away. It will get worse.

so ok, the “scientists” that assured us of the coming ice age, the hole in the ozone, avian flu pandemics, mass starvation due to Malthusian overpopulation, Y2K, the end of the world due to magnetic poles flipping or something else as predicted by the Mayan calendar, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum were all wrong but i think we really should give this bullshit a chance.

what say let’s all meet up at Al Gore’s newly purchased OCEAN FRONT mansion and discuss it.

be forewarned though that if you actually believe in the global warming scam then the only logical position to adopt is one of radical population reduction measures and aggressive subjugation of those countries that threaten the survival of the species.

i for one recognize it as just another scam to dupe the stupid so for the foreseeable future i won’t be participating in any of your genocidal wet dreams.

It is -34C where I am at the moment and my crew and I are busy punching holes in the northern Canadian muskeg searching for nat gas and its condensates.

We can all hope the solar minimum or decreased solar activity over the next several decades causes a lot more cooling than what scientists estimated. That is unless the crops freeze. Then we're in trouble.

Actually I'm not that worried about global warming. I don't live in Florida. If I was living in Miami 100 years from now, I'd have to take more swimming lessons. Supposedly they will be underwater.

Actually about 10,000 years ago, I believe the ocean level was at least 400 feet lower than where it is now. That's why there are so many underwater ruins like one off the coast of Japan.

I'm thinking about turning on my air conditioning here in South Carolina. I'm not used to the heat. I heard it reached 79 degrees down in Augusta today. Then I heard the cold front stalled. It's raining hard off and on.

-34C, now that is really cold. You can keep it up there. :)

Obama is in Hawaii. The weather changes so little out there, they don't even talk about the weather on local stations. It's almost always warm. They did have record cold when I visited.

No legitimate scientist has ever predicted the end of the world because of magnetic pole flipping or the Mayan calendar. The coming Ice Age, which want not put forth by any reputable scientific organization, came to prominence in the 1970s when it was touted by a few less-than-honest publications. Likewise with the avian flu pandemic.

Individuals who are on the front lines of climate science all agree that the Earth is warming. The problem with the deniers is that they tend to only hear what they wish to be true.

"The Day after Tommorow" Art? Get real. Guess who inspired that fiction? Glaciers go and come, but Earth abides. Earth goes through cycles, Art.

Oh, and SCIENTISTS have reported that the surface temp of Mars has risen a few degrees in the past years. Anybody who knows why the fuck that's happening, please explain.

So what? I'm not sure that's the case, but feel free to back up your statement with a peer-reviewed article. Even if the temperature has risen on Mars recently, why would that have any bearing on Earth's situation?

Climate scientists who have spent their whole lives combing through data and devising rigorous experiments that show that the Earth is warming, and that the warming trend is very closely associated with carbon dioxide emission from humans. As you are not a science yourself (I assume), why do you think you know better than the experts? Presumably, you wouldn't say this about medical specialists, chemists, physicists, or biologists. What do non-scientists believe that they're somehow more knowledgeable than scientists? Who knows.

^^^^ You didn't answer. If the Earths temperture rises because of man, whats up with Mars? SCIENTISTS reported it. Look it up yourself.

All the information you'll ever need is in the link below. The site contains explanations for all of the myths commonly espoused by people who don't believe in global warming.

skepticalscience.com

That site also explains the top 10 myths that are often used by people to claim that there is no global warming. Among these myths are:

1. The climate's changed before
2. It's the sun
3. It's not that bad
4. There is no consensus
5. Our climate models are unreliable
6. Antarctica has gained ice

All of these have been thoroughly debunked. They are called "wedge arguments," which are injected into the debate in an attempt to deliberately muddy things so that no action can be taken. Same thing happens with intelligent design.

The best cure for all of this, of course, is knowledge. Please read up on the findings, Mikey. We could use your help in combating climate change.

If all the glacial ice melts, we would have a Waterworld. We would grow webbed feet and gills. How cool would that be?

Motorhead with webbed hands and feet. I think I'm tripping on acid but don't remember taking any.

IronFox22 is right about these wedge arguments. That why I focus on the core. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That is rock solid you can measure the infrared spectrum stuff. Not beyond basic college chem. CO2 is accumulating. Again rock solid. Easy to measure. Even if you don't believe most scientists you've got to know at least some could be hired to show that CO2 isn't rising. They can't, which is why the anti-AGW crowd makes up BS arguments.

Once you get past the rock solid you get into the tricky game of projecting future patterns of CO2 and other greenhouse gas accumulation. You get into feedbacks (CO2 stimulates growth ameliorating CO2 emissions, but warming releases arctic carbon when permafrost melts and exacerbates). That is difficult, but it is possible to say "we run models and can see best-case, worst-case, and middle of the road scenarios". Even under the best case we're in for faster warming than during earlier warm periods.

Mr. Shark is right that climate engineering has been proposed. Somebody will need to pay for the engineering though. But if it is cheaper than reducing emissions I'm all for it.

Reality is though that there are reasons to reduce emissions other than greenhouse gasses. Why are we (mostly America) in the Middle East? Is it because we love the countries so much? At the end of the day we're there because middle eastern oil is there. We're spending huge amounts of money (money that there we're not taxing to offset the spending) and we're spending blood.

If there was high risk associated with middle eastern oil prices will rise. They'll rise worldwide because of scarcity, regardless of production elsewhere. But propping up Mideast dictatorships also costs money. It is just hidden. And much of it is on credit. If the Chinese want to keep prices low let them try to prop up the middle eastern dictators (they don't have the logistical capabilities to do it and I suspect they'll invest in green energy before they pay to build the capability of running a Mideast war -- probably cheaper).

And remember -- Al Gore isn't dictator of climate change responses. He's a politician that latched onto global warming. He currently holds no office. He is really irrelevant.

@IronFox, Zip is trying to actually say something, but you are a joke. Your proof is an obscure blog site by an unknown fiction and essay writer named Graham Wayne? What did you say about the internet?

Whoever said things go in cycles is correct. Stars are born. They age and then later in life our sun will expand and really heat up our planet. I believe sometime in the next several hundred million years or a billion years, the oceans should boil away. Most life on this planet should be dead. I bet if this was going to happen in only a hundred years, the rush to do some engineering work to go to Mars or one of the moons to Jupiter would be talked about. No need to worry now though.

Everything goes in cycles. I'm ok with waiting to see how much warming there is when solar radiation decreases.

Ah, Mikey, that's a site that is trying to explain to people (in an easily understandable way). I can see your point, though.

Try NASA's instead. I presume that you don't think NASA is a joke.

climate.nasa.gov

IronFox, you asked why do people without science degrees question the ones with the degrees who tout AGW. My question for you is why do liberals (mostly) listen to a mental midget who was graduated from college with a C average, flunking the ONE science course he took, and then flunked out of law school about global warming. I am of course referring to Algore. You should listen more to me, by your logic, than him because I was graduated from college with a major in science.

Who says I sacrifice myself on the altar of Al Gore? I'm interested in what the climate scientists have to say.

Again, NASA has excellent information on it. Al Gore doesn't control NASA. Tell me what you think.

climate.nasa.gov/evidence

@IronFox22

NASA you say….well skipping over the falsified temperature data that they were caught posting and the mutiny by NASA scientists publically demanding that the political appointees cease advocating the global warming scam and that NASA return to honest scientific study so that NASA’s reputation would not be further impuned, there is the objective data from twenty-five years of the most accurate temperature observation available which is referenced in the article below.

news.yahoo.com

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism By James TaylorJuly 27, 2011 3:23 PM

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

Doctor Phil,

Did you look at the byline on that article you posted? It's by James Taylor, who works for the Heartland Institute. The organization's whole purpose is to combat environmental legislation. Of course they are going to write articles like this. They are akin to the Discovery Institute, which produces similar articles claiming that evolution did not happen.

The Heartland Institute is also the organization that tried to show in the 1990s that secondhand smoke was in no way harmful to bystanders.

As an side, you can visit the NASA site and view the organizations that have released public statements indicating that global warming is indeed happening. These include:

American Association for the Advancement of Science American Chemical Society American Geophysical Union American Medical Association American Meteorological Society American Physical Society The Geological Society of America *Similar organizations from every developed country around the world.

See them here: climate.nasa.gov

The world has been on a general warming trend since the last ice age. Does man's activities contribute to it .. maybe Should we turn all our money to Algore so he can jet around the world in a fuel guzzling private jet collecting awards for being a douche-bag ... no Remember the same bureaucrats in the 70's were saying the next ice age would start in 35 years tops! I had a college professor tell us that by 1995 we would all have to go onto a subsistence diet of gruel or rice because the world population could not possibly be fed. What should happen is scientists and engineers need to get to work and not try to legislate the problem. Hybrid cars do more environmental damage than a full sized pick up over the course of their life. (the hybrid batteries cannot even be manufactured in a first world country because the pollute so much.

I understand where TiredTravel and others are coming from. No one wants to carry a heavier tax burden. But there are a lot of great things about the planet that I don't want to see go away.

Tiredtraveler, Doctor Phil, and Mikey, I'd still by you a drink at the club if I had a chance. No hard feelings. Have a good Christmas.