Decrease in sea ice a 'cyclical' event

[Desertdog]

Three cheers that the Artic Ice is not going going away forever.

Decrease in sea ice a 'cyclical' event
Pete Chagnon - OneNewsNow

Although Arctic sea ice has dropped to its second lowest level since 1979, one scientist says there is no cause for alarm.
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=237486


According to a recent article from The Associated Press, the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado, says sea ice in the Arctic is down to 2.03 million square miles, which is up slightly from last year's record-setting low level of 1.65 million square miles. However, with only three weeks left in the summer, scientists fear this year's melting could continue and break last year's low record.
 
The AP article quoted a NASA ice scientist saying these new data could mean that climate warming is coming faster than the models are predicting. However, Joseph D'Aleo  the executive director of the website IceCap.us  disagrees.
 
"I don't believe it has anything at all to do with global warming, or at least carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases. It's a normal cyclical change that we've observed in the Arctic going back centuries," D'Aleo contends. "The Arctic ice diminished in the [19]30s, 40s, and 50s. It diminished in the 1800s so much so that the Northwest Passage was open and they were catching codfish off of Siberia. This is a cyclical phenomenon that relates to periodic, very predictable warming in the Atlantic and the Pacific."
 
D'Aleo notes the Pacific Ocean has cooled to pre-1977 temperatures, and he believes the Atlantic will follow within a decade. He also says that Arctic sea ice will recover and possibly increase as a result.

[AZRedhawk44]

Pay no attention to that ALGORE behind the curtain!  I am the great and powerful ManMadeGlobalWarming!

10 years and the Atlantic starts to cool?  You mean hurricanes will decrease?  Like... a cycle?

Those dems better get their cap-and-trade ponzi scheme into place quickly before things "cycle" on their own without their miraculous, world-saving intervention techniques.

[freedom lover]

I can already taste the increasing numbers of cold-water fish.
Why? no more jellies. mmm cod.

[Standing Wolf]

It's Bush's fault.

[Scout26]

Wait, what ?!?!

You meant the earth goes through periodic changes in climate that is not caused by hooooman beeeings.  Causes like changes in the Solar output, Sunspots (and lack thereof), tectonic and volcanic activity amongst other things.

 

And it happens on Mars also........

You mean ALGORE isn't telling the trooth, the whole trooth, and nuthin' but the trooth.


 

[Nick1911]

So because one guy, with the credentials of owing a web site says so, everyone jumps on the "I told you so" bandwagon?

Well, heck - I own two domains and I say that the moon is made of cheese.  Are you going to believe that too, ya [deleted]? 

(N.B. I think that this man is correct, but I don't know why we have any reason to believe him more then any other crazy who says the exact opposite.)

[Sergeant Bob]

So because one guy, with the credentials of owing a web site says so, everyone jumps on the "I told you so" bandwagon?

Well, heck - I own two domains and I say that the moon is made of cheese.  Are you going to believe that too, ya morons? 

(N.B. I think that this man is correct, but I don't know why we have any reason to believe him more then any other crazy who says the exact opposite.)

Well that's certainly high class, calling people morons now isn't it? If you had read this forum before today, you might have noticed that a great many members have been saying this all along and have posted information saying the same.

So no, I don't think any of us "morons" just jumped on the bandwagon. Since I guess you are the only "enlightened" one here (considering you believe the same thing and haven't just jumped on the bandwagon like the rest of the "morons") then we shall just defer to you and agree that the moon is indeed "made of cheese".

[Nick1911]

So because one guy, with the credentials of owing a web site says so, everyone jumps on the "I told you so" bandwagon?

Well, heck - I own two domains and I say that the moon is made of cheese.  Are you going to believe that too, ya morons? 

(N.B. I think that this man is correct, but I don't know why we have any reason to believe him more then any other crazy who says the exact opposite.)

Well that's certainly high class, calling people morons now isn't it? If you had read this forum before today, you might have noticed that a great many members have been saying this all along and have posted information saying the same.

So no, I don't think any of us "morons" just jumped on the bandwagon. Since I guess you are the only "enlightened" one here (considering you believe the same thing and haven't just jumped on the bandwagon like the rest of the "morons") then we shall just defer to you and agree that the moon is indeed "made of cheese".

Okay, look:

Name calling is definitely inappropriate, and likely uncalled for.  For that, I apologize.

That said, I am so, entirely and totally disgusted with the fact that unpopular opinions on this forum are heavly scrutinized and picked to death, whereas popular opinions are accepted at face value, with no analyzing of facts or sources.  Just a smug Look, we were right all along!  This guy says so!

I dont believe its a logical, valid way to draw conclusions about a controversial issue.

[Iain]

Come on Nick - the guy runs a website. I thought for a second I'd hacked your account and forgotten all about it. I wouldn't say I'm disgusted, but your gripe hasn't slipped my notice in the last few years.

He is actually a meterologist, and a little known sceptic, I'd never heard of him before. He's not necessarily wrong by any means, but he hasn't provided any sources and a quick google scholar search isn't drawing out much he has written on the subject of sea ice or climatology in general.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The global warming argument is a bit different, Nick.  We're being asked to believe in global warming because there's agreement between scientists that it's so.  Not because it's verifiable, provable, repeatable, good science, but because they say so.  

Six year-olds are smart enough to know that "because I said so" is a dumb reason to believe anything, yet the global warmists resort to precisely that argument.

Well, it turns out that they don't all say so.  There is in fact significant disagreement on the science of global warming.  So whenever we hear a report of yet another scientist who disagrees, we find a bit of amusement in it.  

[AZRedhawk44]

Out of curiosity, I ran a WHOIS against icecap.us to see just how professional Mr. D'Aleo's organization might be.

Here's a picture of the registrant address:

18 Glen Dr.
Hudson, NH 03051

You can call his home number if you'd like... it's on the registrant information.  I won't post it here.

Doesn't sound like his organization even has an office to its credit.

I think there are a lot better places the nooz could have used as a counterpoint source than this guy.  I'm sure someone from NOAA could have argued a cogent counterpoint, had a doctorate to their name, and a DirectorOfSomething title to add to their credentials.

[Iain]

It's never been 'because we said so'. The point is that now the consensus is pretty darn impressive, the debate isn't over, the theory isn't proven (what scientific theory ever is I ask you?) but the blocks that make up the wall are well enough stuck together, that short of some devastating blow, most are convinced that our understanding is good enough to warrant action. Scientists in relevant disciplines this is.

The science is out there, go read it. I can recommend Weart's 'The Discovery of Global Warming', which puts the scientific understanding in the context of more than 100 years of scientific research, theory, refinement of theory, experiment, refinement of theory etc. It's even readable and possibly available on line. Weart also gets a bit into the philosophy of science - as in what a theory is.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The "because we/they said so" argument is the biggest, most oft-trumpeted reason for believing in global warming (at least here in the States, maybe it's different in Britain).  That's why we find such great amusement whenever conflicting science comes to light.  Not only do the alarmists rely on a dumb-as-rocks argument, they can't even make that dumb argument stick.

I'll be happy to give Weart a read, but I'm not going to spend any of my hard-earned cash on it.  Can you provide an online source?

So far, all that I've learned indicates that climate change is too ill-understood to form any overarching conclusions.  There are too many alternatives, all equally plausible and all unproven.  And there isn't much in the way of testable, verifiable, repeatable, honest-to-God science behind it all.

Maybe Weart's is different.  I'm willing to give it a go, but I don't expect much.

[Iain]

Was looking for it while you were posting - http://www.aip.org/history/climate/ - I think that is the complete text.

[Tallpine]

All I know is that we are getting late October type weather here right now.  We had to light a fire in the woodstove again today (Monday, also).

Last frost was the middle of June, first frost was Tuesday morning - but we got some sun and it warmed up.

[freedom lover]

I heard somewhere there is global warming on Mars. I think it was from NASA.
I never thought of martians as SUV-driving types.

[Tallpine]

I heard somewhere there is global warming on Mars. I think it was from NASA.
I never thought of martians as SUV-driving types.

It's all "off road" driving up there

[Gewehr98]

I edited out the "moron" bit, since the original poster didn't see fit to do so after the subtle reminder...

In the meantime, I'm so terribly shaken by the whole global warming thing, that I took action last week.

I bought a brand-new Jeep Liberty 4x4.   

[drewtam]

I am the first to vehemently disagree with the anthropogenic global warming theory....

but Redhawk and Nick nailed the truth of the matter. The cited expert is a joke, and the only reason why this forum accepted his testimony is because it fits this forum's popular world view.

[MechAg94]

But, but, but the article said he was a SCIENTIST!  We have to believe him!   


I do actually remember all the people saying all the scientists agreed with AGW so we must be ignorant to question it.  I can't remember who used the argument, but it was there.  Articles were posted and posters made the argument.  Now we have a "scientist" who disagrees with it, but he is an ignorant loner who is outside his field.  That "outside his field" response fell on deaf ears when it was used to describe the thousands of scientists who were for AGW previously.  We only stopped hearing that argument after certain groups documented quite a number of scientists who disagreed with AGW.   

[freakazoid]

Now this global warming might be because it is "cyclic" or because of sunspots or something natural, but isn't it true that CO2 does affect how much sunlight is reflected back? And since we do put a lot of it into the air I wouldn't doubt that we are affecting it at least a little bit. Now whether global warming is completely due to us or is a combination or simply due to the natural cycle of things I don't know. But either way the earth is changing, and it could be for the worse.

[drewtam]

Absolutely, it could be worse. But by that logic, it could be better. Or neither positive nor negative, just different. Or it could change back. But it is ill-conceived to threaten increased poverty on tens of millions of people throughout the world on suppositions or possibilities. And that's the real truth about creating massive GW legislation without an air tight climate model (pun intended).

[Scout26]

but isn't it true that CO2 does affect how much sunlight is reflected back?

Not quite as much as Water Vapor (aka Clouds).  It takes significant amounts of CO2 to impact the climate.....Like so much that there wouldn't be enough O2 for us to breathe.   If you want to see a Climatologist's head explode just ask him about modeling water vapor in the climate change models...... (Did it at Fermilab when they had a public info conference on global woerming climate change.  Man, was he PO'd at me.

The whole "look at how much CO2 we're spewing, it's gotta be bad" is a bunch of hokem.

58 and raining in Chicago today with forecast for more of the same tomorrow.  Someone tell ALGORE we need more global woerming up here. 

[richyoung]

Now this global warming might be because it is "cyclic" or because of sunspots or something natural, but isn't it true that CO2 does affect how much sunlight is reflected back? And since we do put a lot of it into the air I wouldn't doubt that we are affecting it at least a little bit. Now whether global warming is completely due to us or is a combination or simply due to the natural cycle of things I don't know. But either way the earth is changing, and it could be for the worse.

The gorilla driving the greenhouse train is water, in vapor form.  It overwhelms the effect of all other greenhouse gasses, and is almost completely from natural sources.  Every chart showing how bad increasing CO2 would be conveniently leaves out water vapor.  When the effect of clouds is included, as much as 93% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor.  I say, "as much as..." because we don;t even KNOW yet the exact figure - NASA is doing ongoing research and data examination to try to figure out.   NONE of the climate models used to "prove" global warming model water correctly, if at all - because no one knows HOW to model it.  Current climate models, when fed current conditions and run backwards, RAPIDLY diverge from recorded history in their output.  Past about 150 years,  we don't have any good temperature records at all - and only satellite readings are accurate AND precise enough to seperate the "noise" from the signals of global temperature change - or at least have the potential to BE that accurate and precise, just as soon as everyone agrees on how to "adjust" the data.  Pop quiz kiddees - how long have we even HAD satellite temperature measurements, much less good ones?  Is that long enough to RELIABLY predict a phenomenon that has cycles measured in tens and thousands of thousand years?  Anthropogenic Global Warming as a shining exaplme of the "Garbage In - Garbage Out" priciple of computer science - and EXACTLY the same as the "Nuclear WInter" fraud, and for the same reason.

[zahc]

It's amusing that the same people that cannot predict the path of a hurricane or the temperature it's going to be tomorrow or when it will rain on midwestern bean fields, are the same people that think we should seed the atmosphere with silver particles to rescue us from the global warming from which we  will certainly all die in exactly 100 years.

I rub shoulders with scientists on a daily basis, and AGW doctrine is widespread, but in a political way, not a scientific way. Even scientific discussions of AGW are tiptoeing and awkward, on the basis of the fact that the science just isn't there. Everyone implicitly supports the idea because it's politically favorable in the current academic climate, and it pulls research funding. It's an emperor's-new-clothes issue. It's nearly impossible to find a grant proposal from my department from the last year that doesn't somehow mention global warming and how OMGTOTC we are all going to die without more critical research in this area.