global warming | Page 4 | INFJ Forum

global warming

global warming?

  • Is happening and man made

  • Is happening and natural

  • Is not happening, greens are hysterical

  • Is just a distracting ploy

  • Is an attempt to establish a world government.


Results are only viewable after voting.
All of the CO2 we are releasing into the atmosphere was originally taken from the atmosphere by plants and bacteria. We are simply reversing many thousands of years of CO2 fixation by earlier lifeforms.

Except for the little amount of matter we send into orbit, or beyond, we do not add, or take away from what was already here. As for altering the climate, or the ecosystem, every living thing on Earth has an impact on these things. We are no different, except for the manner in which we impact it. Presumably, for many of the planets with life throughout the galaxy - and the other galaxies - intelligent life is a feature of the ecosystem.

Hopefully we don't end up like the fictional Star Wars planet, where the entire planet is one big city, but if we do end up that way, I think it would be fair to say that such a stage of development would be part of the natural development of life on a planet.

I would consider something natural only if it is something that occurs of itself. Nature has its natural laws that stuff follows. For example, if there is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, there's more food for certain types of bacteria, so those bacteria start to reproduce more and become more prominent. You could say that's an example of other species messing with the ecosystem, but I wouldn't say that. That I would call part of the ecosystem. However, humans are sentient, and in my opinion have free will. We do things by design that is not a part of the natural order (this presumes the idea that we are superior to the other life on this planet *so far as we are aware* and therefore above that system). This would make sense because by adding higher cognitive function and free will, you must add a new set of laws to the system. A basic ecosystem like a pond is much simpler than a human settlement. Now yes, I do agree you could call us a part of nature because I do agree we came about as a part of a natural process (natural not being the best word to use here, but that's a discussion for another time), however I would also draw a line between the more simple laws that govern the more primitive forms of life and the highly complicated nature of our ability to make choices. For example, if theres more CO2 in an atmosphere, the ecosystem compensates. Us humans, we just keep adding more CO2 even though we know levels are way to high already. Curving output is not a fix. It's a delay. We need to bring our CO2 output below the threshold of what our ecosystem can handle in the form that is comfortable to us humans. The same rule needs to apply to everything we humans leave as waste products.
 
I think it would be fair to say that such a stage of development would be part of the natural development of life on a planet.

I wanted to address this more directly. Yes you could say that intelligent life is a natural development, but because this intelligent life is self aware and has the ability to make a difference, I would go so far as that gives us a responsibility to do good with that ability. We have the ability to consider and actively engage in the natural processes of this ecosystem, so we also should do good for this ecosystem. To do otherwise would show us to be irresponsible and deserving of what comes our way.
 
I would consider something natural only if it is something that occurs of itself. Nature has its natural laws that stuff follows. For example, if there is a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere, there's more food for certain types of bacteria, so those bacteria start to reproduce more and become more prominent. You could say that's an example of other species messing with the ecosystem, but I wouldn't say that. That I would call part of the ecosystem. However, humans are sentient, and in my opinion have free will. We do things by design that is not a part of the natural order (this presumes the idea that we are superior to the other life on this planet *so far as we are aware* and therefore above that system). This would make sense because by adding higher cognitive function and free will, you must add a new set of laws to the system. A basic ecosystem like a pond is much simpler than a human settlement. Now yes, I do agree you could call us a part of nature because I do agree we came about as a part of a natural process (natural not being the best word to use here, but that's a discussion for another time), however I would also draw a line between the more simple laws that govern the more primitive forms of life and the highly complicated nature of our ability to make choices. For example, if theres more CO2 in an atmosphere, the ecosystem compensates. Us humans, we just keep adding more CO2 even though we know levels are way to high already. Curving output is not a fix. It's a delay. We need to bring our CO2 output below the threshold of what our ecosystem can handle in the form that is comfortable to us humans. The same rule needs to apply to everything we humans leave as waste products.

I guess I consider humans and our activities as part of nature, no matter how high our skyscrapers go.

We are certainly different from the rest of nature because of a few fundamental differences, but that doesn't mean that we are outside nature.

If we try to preserve the other life-forms and ecosystems as they are, would that not be an active stunting of the development and evolution of life?
 
I don't have to explain this, Bill Nye sums it up nicely :)

[video]http://www.smithsonianmag.com/video/Climate-Change-101-With-Bill-Nye-the-Science-Guy.html#ooid=BycjFtNzoNqDj6MomRzoRGsY7DQWue4W[/video]
I used to like Bill Nye until he decided to forego science and jump on the political bandwagon to say global warming is man made. Theres simply no factual scientific proof man is having any effect on the global climate, only conjecture. Its very sad really.
 
reading this thread makes me think we're all going to fucking die, and it will all be because a bunch of teenagers grew up distrusting scientific establishments because it was edgy and cool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dudemanbro
global warming.jpg

I forget where I got this but I posted on face book 3 years ago
 
reading this thread makes me think we're all going to fucking die, and it will all be because a bunch of teenagers grew up distrusting scientific establishments because it was edgy and cool.

What do you know about HAARP?
 
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/warmingplanets.html

[h=2]Global warming on other planets?[/h] compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston
last modified 15 October 2007 Contents:


Introduction:
Recently reports have circulated about global warming occurring on other planets and satellites in the solar system. These reports have been misunderstood by global warming believers as well as global warming skeptics. This article is intended to review the actual observations regarding these planets and moons, plus place the topic in perspective.

Some background:
Believers in global warming hold to what I will call the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. This involves multiple claims: (1) anomalous global warming is now occurring on Earth; (2) this warming is the result of anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas emissions; (3) unnatural levels of global warming will occur during the next century; (4) the consequences of this warming will be disastrous; and (5) specific, immediate public policy actions are necessary to mitigate this coming disaster. While some claim that the scientific community agrees with these claims, in reality scientists have come to a variety of conclusions on all five claims, and many scientists may agree with some but reject others. Taken as a whole, the scientific evidence does not support such an extreme position. (For more on this, see this page).
Observations of several planets and moons in our solar system show climate change is occurring on these bodies. This is held by some skeptics of global warming to prove that climate change is natural, refuting claims about the nearly exclusive role of mankind in climate change on Earth. Believers have countered that none of these observations have any relationship to natural influences on the Earth's climate. Both claims are wrong.
Part of the problem is a misunderstanding of natural influences on the Earth's climate. The total solar irradiance, or flux of solar energy arriving at the Earth, is well measured and has varied by only about 0.1% in the last few decades. Believers correctly point out that this can only directly produce a temperature change of about 0.07° C on Earth. They err, however, in claiming or implying that this is the only possible Sun-climate link. Considerable evidence supports the hypothesis that solar influences have indirect effects on the Earth's climate, with the potential of contributing to a greater fraction of recent observed climate change.
Some solar output varies by much more than 0.1%, such as UV solar radiation and magnetic activity. One proposed mechanism in particular suggests that variations in solar magnetic activity affect the amount of galactic cosmic rays reaching the Earth. This indirectly influences climate because these cosmic rays affect the formation of clouds which reflect more or less sunlight back to space depending on solar activity, consequently changing the Earth's climate. Such indirect mechanisms could in principle produce most of the modern observed change in global temperature. Studies to date show correlations supporting these claimed mechanisms but parts of the casual link have yet to be confirmed (unsurprisingly, research dollars are scarce when it comes to investigating natural influences on climate).
The relevant point is that the Sun-climate link proposed by scientists skeptical of global warming claims is indirect and involves mechanisms particular to the Earth system. The fact that we have not observed large changes in total solar irradiance, or large climate shifts on other planets, does nothing to refute the claim that the Sun-Earth climate link is significant. At the same time, some and perhaps even all of the extraterrestrial climate shifts are from mechanisms with no bearing on the Earth's climate. This boils down to the fact that we don't fully understand climate change, either here or elsewhere in the solar system. Those that claim we do (and particularly that we can concentrate on a single mechanism for climate change on Earth) are seriously wrong from a scientific perspective.

Climate change reports in the solar system:
Our ability to make long-term comparative climate observations elsewhere in the solar system is very limited. Only in a few cases have we had spaceprobes observing particular planets or moons long enough to discuss climate on timescales of decades. Further, the outer planets have orbital periods of decades: this means that their seasonal cycles also occur over decades, such that changes we observe on shorter time periods may just be seasonal. That said, here are reports of climate change:


Mars: Various spacecraft have observed Mars from orbit from 1971 to the present, many able to provide a long baseline of climate observations. In 2001 Malin et al. (2001) found that images of Mars' south polar cap taken one Martian year apart showed small retreats (of about 1-3 meters) in the cover of frozen carbon dioxide. This frozen CO[SUB]2[/SUB] sublimes directly from ice to gas in Mars' thin atmosphere. Observations over the next few Martian years' (one Martian year = 1.88 Earth years) showed continuing retreat, resulting in expanding pits in the residual polar cap (Benson and James, 2005; Thomas et al., 2005; James et al., 2007). This retreat has now been observed over four Martian years. Several global warming believers have been quick to state that this is a regional climate change. However, Fenton et al. (2006) and Fenton et al. (2007) have identified trends in changes in the reflectivity of the surface dust on Mars from 1976 to 2000. From observed albedo changes they have used models to estimate a global annual air temperature increase of 0.65° C. The direct cause of this predicted temperature change is a change in the distribution of darker dust on Mars' surface, and the resulting warming could be a factor in the retreat of Mars' south polar ice. One proposed root cause of this climate change could be slight shifts in Mars' axial tilt or orbital eccentricity: such changes have also been proposed as key drivers in changing Earth's climate between glacial and interglacial conditions (i.e. starting and ending ice ages). These shifts involve very long timescales on Mars as well as Earth, making this an inadequate explanation for the changes observed currently. Internal variations in Mars' climate, as opposed to influences from solar output changes, are likely at work, but this issue is unresolved.

[h=6]Mars in the 1970s. (Credit: Viking Project, USGS, NASA).[/h]
Mars-2.jpg
Mars-SPC.jpg

[h=6]Changes in Mars' south polar cap from 1999 to 2005. (Credit: MSSS, NASA).[/h]

Jupiter: Jupiter is a gas giant with a thick atmosphere of hydrogen and helium; the observable surface is actually the cloudtops. Jupiter has been observed by several spacecraft: flybys include Pioneers 10 and 11 in 1972, Voyagers 1 and 2 in 1979, and New Horizons in 2007; the Galileo orbiter provided long-term observations of Jupiter from 1995 to 2003. Further, the Hubble Space Telescope has been able to observe Jupiter for years. The atmosphere of Jupiter is very dynamic, with cloud belts and circular storms, the largest being the Great Red Spot, known for 300 years. Several noteworthy changes in Jupiter's atmosphere have been observed in recent years. Three storms merged in 1998-2000, producing what became a new Red Spot in 2005 (Marcus et al., 2006). Baines et al. (2007) describe additional recent changes in Jupiter's clouds. While these changes are not yet understood, the internal energy and dynamics of Jupiter are sufficient to provide mechanisms for changes of these magnitudes. Periodic changes and upheavals have been observed in Jupiter's atmosphere for many decades.

Jupiter-2.jpg

[h=6]Jupiter in 2000 and 2006. The Great Red Spot is at upper right in both images. Left image shows several white spots (left center) which merged to form the new Red Spot, seen in the right image (left of center). (Credit: NASA, JPL, SSI; NASA, ESA, A. Simon-Miller).[/h]

Titan: Titan is the largest moon of Saturn and has a thick atmosphere of nitrogen and methane. It was observed closeup during Voyager 1 and 2 flybys in 1980 and 1981, and by Cassini from 2004 to the present. Lorenz et al. (1999) using Hubble Space Telescope observations found that the relative brightness of the northern and southern hemispheres had changed from 1994 to 1997. The amount and timing of changes were different at different wavelengths. As they discussed, these changes are understood to be seasonal: Titan's seasons have a 29-year cycle, corresponding to Saturn's orbital period about the Sun. Cassini has since shown that Titan's atmosphere is quite dynamic and has provided evidence of methane-driven weather, analogous to the water-driven weather on Earth. The changes in Titan's brightness are believed to represent changes in haze particles, possibly from transport between hemispheres as the seasons change.
Titan-2.jpg

[h=6]Titan in 1981 and 2005. Color differences in the two images mostly result from the different cameras used and differences in processing. (Credit: NASA, JPL; NASA, JPL, SSI).[/h]

Uranus: Uranus is a gas giant with a thick atmosphere. The only closeup visit to Uranus was a flyby by Voyager 2 in 1986. Earth-bound telescopes, however have revealed slight changes in the brightness of Uranus over the last 50 years (Lockwood and Thompson, 1999; Lockwood and Jerzykiewicz, 2006; Hammel and Lockwood, 2007). These changes are easily explanable as seasonal changes. The seasonal cycle of Uranus is 84 years, matching its orbital period; further, Uranus has a high axial tilt, such that by the 1980s the south pole of Uranus is presented almost face on towards the Sun--and at the same time, to the Earth. The extreme changes likely contribute to changes in the cloud cover on Uranus.
Uranus-2.jpg

[h=6]Uranus in 1986 and 2005. Color differences in the two images mostly result from the different cameras used; differences in bright cloud cover are real. (Credit: NASA, JPL; NASA, ESA, M. Showalter).[/h]

Neptune: Like Uranus, Neptune is a gas giant with a thick atmosphere of hydrogen, helium, and methane. Voyager 2 is the only spacecraft to observe Neptune close up, during a flyby in 1989, but Neptune has been long observed by Earth-bound telescopes. Using such observations over decades, several studies have reported on changes in Neptune's brightness over the last 50 years (Lockwood and Thompson, 2002; Lockwood and Jerzykiewicz, 2006; Hammel and Lockwood, 2007). Given that Neptune's seasons vary with a 164-year period, matching its orbital period about the Sun, seasonal changes likely contribute to the brightness changes, either through changes in the clouds in Neptune's atmosphere, changes in the portion of Neptune visible from Earth, or both. However, Hammel and Lockwood (2007) suggest that the details in the variations can't be explained as seasonal changes alone. They found some correlation between the variations and changes in solar activity--along with correlations between Neptune's brightness and the average global temperature on Earth. If there is a link between the Sun and the climate of Neptune, it would be indirect: their data indicate about a 12% brightening of Neptune from 1950 to 2005, which would necessarily involve changes in Neptune's clouds.

Neptune-2.jpg

[h=6]Neptune in 1989 and 2005. Differences in the two images mostly represent the different cameras used. (Credit: NASA, JPL; NASA, ESA, E. Karkoschka, H. B. Hammel).[/h]

Triton: Triton is the largest moon of Neptune and has a very thin atmosphere of nitrogen and methane. Triton has only been observed closeup during Voyager 2's brief flyby in 1989, but astronomers have observed Triton using ground-based telescopes and the Hubble Space Telescope orbiting Earth. Importantly, observations of stellar occultations by Triton (where Triton passes in front of a star) have allowed astronomers to deduce properties of its atmosphere. In this way, Elliot et al. (1998) were able to report that Triton's atmosphere had thickened between 1989 and 1997. They found that at an altitude of 48 km above Triton's surface, the atmospheric pressure increased about 65% from 1995 to 1997, with the temperature increasing 2° C in that period. This implied roughly a doubling of the pressure at Triton's surface from 1989 to 1997, with a corresponding surface temperature increase of about 2° C. These changes are likely seasonal changes. Triton, like Neptune, has seasons with a 164-year cycle. Currently, the south pole of Triton is in summer. This has warmed the surface enough to vaporize nitrogen frosts on the surface, revealing darker ices below that absorb more sunlight and warm further. The nitrogen contributes to a thicker atmosphere and eventually freezes as frost in the northern hemisphere where it is winter (in 82 years the situation with be reversed).

Triton-2.jpg

[h=6]Triton in 1989. Bright bluish areas towards the top are frost deposits. (Credit: NASA, JPL).[/h]

Pluto: Pluto has a thin atmosphere of nitrogen and methane, and its surface is covered with various ices including methane, nitrogen, and carbon monoxide. The orbital period of Pluto (and thus its seasonal cycle) is 248 years, and its eccentric orbit results in Pluto receiving much more solar radiation near perihelion (which last occurred in 1989) then during the rest of its orbit. Like with Triton, astronomers have used stellar occultations to observe Pluto's atmosphere. From 1988 to 2002, such observations showed that the pressure in Pluto's atmosphere at a fixed height had doubled (Elliot et al., 2003; Sicardy et al., 2003). (This fixed height is about 10-90 km above Pluto's surface, depending on where it's surface is.) This was somewhat surprising, given that Pluto was moving further from the Sun. However, seasonal changes may be important here, given that the peak of southern hemisphere summer on Pluto is yet approaching. Changes on Pluto involve the evaporation of surface ices from warming regions to add to atmospheric gases, which can migrate and refreeze in cooler locations. This results in changes in the bright or dark regions on Pluto's surface and changes in its overall reflectivity (Hansen and Paige, 1996; Brown, 2002; Pasachoff et al., 2005). Pluto's atmosphere was observed during another stellar occultation in 2006, showing that the atmosphere has become more transparent since 1988 (Elliot et al., 2007) but apparently no additional warming. The warming well beyond Pluto's perihelion could be explained by high thermal inertia or darkening of surface materials (Pasachoff et al., 2005).

Pluto-temp.gif

[h=6]Estimated seasonal changes in surface temperature on Pluto at different locations.[/h]

Conclusion:
To recap: the changes observed in recent years on Jupiter, Titan, Uranus, and Triton are understood as normal and/or seasonal changes. Changes on Mars, Neptune, and Pluto are not fully understood:

  • Changes in Mars' south polar cap may represent climate change, but this is likely due to phenomena particular to Mars.
  • Changes in Neptune's brightness do seem to correlate with changes in the Sun, but the linking mechanism (if any) is unknown.
  • Changes in Pluto's atmosphere seem to be seasonal; work is ongoing on this topic.
In the cases of Mars, Neptune, and Pluto, our understanding is incomplete. They may prove to have no connection to mechanisms for natural climate change on Earth. At the same time, some global warming believers have been too hasty in dismissing these observations. Still, they do demonstrate that we don't fully understand climate change.
References:

  • Baines, K. H., et al., 2007, "Polar lightning and decadal-scale cloud variability on Jupiter," Science, 318:226-229.
  • Benson, J. L., and P. B. James, 2005, "Yearly comparisons of the martian polar caps: 1999-2003 Mars Orbiter Camera observations," Icarus, 174:513-523.
  • Brown, M. E., 2002, "Pluto and Charon: formation, seasons, composition," Annual Rev. Earth and Planetary Science, 30:307-345.
  • Elliot, J. L., et al., 1998, "Global warming on Triton," Nature, 393:765-767.
  • Elliot, J. L., et al., 2000, "The prediction and observation of the 1997 July 18 stellar occulation by Triton: More evidence for increasing pressure in Triton's atmosphere," Icarus, 148:347-369.
  • Elliot, J. L., et al., 2003, "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere," Nature, 424:165-168.
  • Elliot, J. L., et al., 2007, "Changes in Pluto's atmosphere: 1988-2006," Astronomical Journal, 134:1-13.
  • Fenton, L. K., P. E. Geissler, and R. M. Haberle, 2006, "Global warming on Mars," AGU Fall Meeting 2006, abstract #P23A-0047.
  • Fenton, L. K., P. E. Geissler, and R. M. Haberle, 2007, "Global warming and climate forcing by recent albedo changes on Mars," Nature, 446:646-649.
  • Herbert, B. D., B. Buratti, B. Schmidt, and J. Bauer, "Photometric evidence for volatile transport on Triton," AGU Fall Meeting 2003, abstract #P51B-0443.
  • Hammel, H. B., and G. W. Lockwood, 2007, "Long-term atmospheric variability on Uranus and Neptune," Icarus, 186:291-301.
  • Hammel, H. B., and G. W. Lockwood, 2007, "Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature," Geophysical Research Letters, 34:L08203.
  • Hansen, C. J., and D. A. Paige, 1996, "Seasonal nitrogen cycles on Pluto," Icarus, 120:247-265.
  • James, P. B., P. C. Thomas, M. J. Wolff, and B. P. Bonev, 2007, "MOC observations of four Mars year variations in the south polar residual cap of Mars," Icarus, forthcoming.
  • Lockwood, G. W., and D. T. Thompson, 1999, "Photometric variability of Uranus, 1972-1996," Icarus, 137:2-12.
  • Lorenz, R. D., M. T. Lemmon, P. H. Smith, and G. W. Lockwood, 1999, "Seasonal change on Titan observed with the Hubble Space Telescope WFPC-2," Icarus, 142:391-401.
  • Lockwood, G. W., and D. T. Thompson, 2002, "Photometric variability of Neptune, 1972-2000," Icarus, 156:37-51.
  • Lockwood, G. W., and M. Jerzykiewicz, 2006, "Photometric variability of Uranus and Neptune, 1950-2004," Icarus, 180:442-452.
  • Malin, M. C., M. A. Caplinger, and S. D. Davis, 2001, "Observational evidence for an active surface reservoir of solid carbon dioxide on Mars," Science, 294:2146-2149.
  • Marcus, P., et al., 2006, "Velocities and temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and their implications for global climate change," Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 38:554.
  • Olkin, C. B., et al., 1997, "The thermal structure of Triton's atmosphere: results from the 1993 and 1995 occultations," Icarus, 129:178-201.
  • Pasachoff, J. M., et al., 2005, "The structure of Pluto's atmosphere from the 2002 August 21 stellar occultation," Astrophysical Journal, 129:1718-1723.
  • Sicardy, B., et al., 2003, "Large changes in Pluto's atmosphere as revealed by recent stellar occultations," Nature, 424:168-170.
  • Thomas, P. C., et al., 2005, "South polar residual cap of Mars: Features, stratigraphy, and changes," Icarus, 174:535-559.

© 2007 by Wm. Robert Johnston.
Last modified 15 October 2007.
Return to Home. Return to Environmental Topics.
 
Searching for Life via Exoplanet Smog

A quick perusal of the Astrobites tag for “atmospheres” shows that researchers are already deep into predicting what these spectra may tell us about the composition of exoplanet atmospheres and what those atmospheres might tell us about life. (Korey’s recent post, Earth as an exoplanet via the Moon, is especially pertinent.) The authors of today’s paper join and expand the conversation, asking whether signs of industrial life–in other words, pollutioncould be detected as well.
The authors limit their inquiry to an Earth-mass planet orbiting a white dwarf, as they say that white dwarfs are likely to have long-lasting habitable zones and their small size makes for good contrast between stellar and planetary spectra. They focus on two chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), CCl[SUB]3[/SUB]F and CF[SUB]4[/SUB]. These molecules are best known on Earth for their part in ozone depletion, but they’re also greenhouse gasses. While some easier-to-detect molecules, like methane and nitrous oxide, are also byproducts of industrialization, they are not as exclusively anthropogenic as these pollutants. The authors point out the irony that the worst-case scenario for pollution in Earth’s atmospherehigh concentrations of global warming-inducing moleculesmakes for the best-case scenario for atmospheric detection of an alien civilization
http://astrobites.org/2014/06/18/searching-for-life-via-exoplanet-smog/

forgive me for not copy and pasting the entire article, just the pertinent point and a link to the page is sufficient (IMO)
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ctions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure.html

[h=1]It's politics, not science, driving climate mania: Why are environmentalists and scientists so reluctant to discuss long-term increases in southern hemisphere sea ice?[/h]
  • UN computer predictions subject of ridicule: not got it right for 18 years
  • Across the globe, there are about 1m sq km more sea ice than 35 years ago
  • Authorities are now guessing global temperatures based on nearby weather stations
By Andrew Mountford, Climate Change Author
Published: 22:01, 5 July 2014 | Updated: 00:54, 6 July 2014

For years, computer simulations have predicted that sea ice should be disappearing from the Poles.
Now, with the news that Antarctic sea-ice levels have hit new highs, comes yet another mishap to tarnish the credibility of climate science.
Climatologists base their doom-laden predictions of the Earth’s climate on computer simulations.
But these have long been the subject of ridicule because of their stunning failure to predict the pause in warming – nearly 18 years long on some measures – since the turn of the last century.

article-2681812-1F6ACBC100000578-335_638x418.jpg

+2

An adult chinstrap penguin jumps out of the sea at Port Lockroy, Antarctica


It’s the same with sea ice. We hear a great deal about the decline in Arctic sea ice, in line with or even ahead of predictions.
But why are environmentalists and scientists so much less keen to discuss the long-term increase in the southern hemisphere?
In fact, across the globe, there are about one million square kilometres more sea ice than 35 years ago, which is when satellite measurements began.

[h=4]More...[/h]

It’s fair to say that this has been something of an embarrassment for climate modellers. But it doesn’t stop there.
In recent days a new scandal over the integrity of temperature data has emerged, this time in America, where it has been revealed as much as 40 per cent of temperature data there are not real thermometer readings.
Many temperature stations have closed, but rather than stop recording data from these posts, the authorities have taken the remarkable step of ‘estimating’ temperatures based on the records of surrounding stations.

article-2681812-1F61554200000578-798_638x417.jpg

+2

A Crabeater seal on an iceberg in Paradise Bay, Antarctica. Crabeater seals are the most common large mammal on the planet after humans, with an estimated population of 15 million


So vast swathes of the data are actually from ‘zombie’ stations that have long since disappeared. This is bad enough, but it has also been discovered that the US’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is using estimates even when perfectly good raw data is available to it – and that it has adjusted historical records.
Why should it do this? Many have noted that the effect of all these changes is to produce a warmer present and a colder past, with the net result being the impression of much faster warming.
They draw their conclusions accordingly.
Naturally, if the US temperature records are indeed found to have been manipulated, this is unlikely to greatly affect our overall picture of rising temperatures at the end of the last century and a standstill thereafter.
The US is, after all, only a small proportion of the globe.
Similarly, climatologists’ difficulties with the sea ice may be of little scientific significance in the greater scheme of things.
We have only a few decades of data, and in climate terms this is probably too short to demonstrate that either the Antarctic increase or the Arctic decrease is anything other than natural variability.
But the relentless focus by activist scientists on the Arctic decline does suggest a political imperative rather than a scientific one – and when put together with the story of the US temperature records, it’s hard to avoid the impression that what the public is being told is less than the unvarnished truth.
As their credulity is stretched more and more, the public will – quite rightly – treat demands for action with increasing caution…



 
polar+ice+cap.gif
article-2415191-1BAEE1D0000005DC-503_640x366.jpg
images
indicator9_2013_melt_map_big.JPG
 
images
images
images
hqdefault.jpg
 
spseaice_ssmr_200002.png
Arctic_sea_ice_loss_animation.gif
 
Arctic_sea_ice_loss_animation.gif
 
[video=youtube;-8bHufxbxc8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8bHufxbxc8[/video]
 
626812main_MultiYr_seaIce_1980.jpg
 
626813main_MultiYr_seaIce_2012.jpg
 
Global warming is natural, slightly influenced by man's action and that influence is exaggerated as a distracting ploy. Whether or not it is "happening," is a matter of defining key terms. If one thing is for certain, it is that nothing is certain; the only constant is change.

Once again, I am ever the diplomat.

*I bow elegantly.*
 
[video=youtube;qTQyWlyA58A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTQyWlyA58A[/video]
 
http://www.iceagenow.com/Antarctic_Sea_Ice_Up_Over_4.7%_Since_1980.htm

Antarctic Sea Ice Up 4.7% Since 1980,
Where Is The Media?
__________________

1
5 Apr 09 - Yes, you read that right. The amount of se ice around Antarctica has increased 4.7 percent since 1980. Yet all we hear about are the comparatively tiny areas that are melting.
Antarctic_Sea_Ice_Mar2009.png
.
Antarctic_Sea_Ice_Mar1980.png

Last week I saw a breathless article last week telling the heart-wrenching tale of how an ice bridge on the west side of the Antarctic Peninsula had broken, and that if all of the Antarctic ice should melt, that sea levels could rise 157 feet.
The article didn't bother to mention that the sea ice around the rest of Antarctica has been expanding, and that if that should continue (which I think is more likely), that sea levels would fall - sea levels would decline! - by 370 feet. In the south, you'd be able to walk from Australia to Tasmania. In the north, with the Bering Straight above water, you'd be able to walk from Alaska to Siberia.
The article also didn't bother to mention that, except for the Antarctic Peninsula, the Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing. (See Antarctic ice grows to record levels)
Take another look at the map (above). See that little tongue of land sticking into the water on the upper left-hand side? That's the Antarctic Peninsula. That's where the ice is melting. But on the rest of Antarctica the ice is growing thicker.
The Antarctic Ice Sheet is twice as big as the continental United States. The Antarctic Ice Sheet contains more than 90 percent of the world's ice. In other words, more than 90 percent of the world's glaciers are growing, and all we hear about are the ones that are melting.
As I said, "Where is the media?"

If you cherry pick the numbers and look only at the month of March
(which the article did that I quoted yesterday), the amount of sea ice
has increased a whopping 43 percent. In March of 1980, Antarctic sea
ice covered 3.5 million sq. km. (1.6 million sq. miles). Today it covers
five million sq. km. (1.9 million sq. miles). That's an extra 1.5 million
sq. km. (386,000 square miles)!

.
http://digg.com/d1oLpy
Thanks to Jane Cantrell for this link
[SIZE=-5] [/SIZE]