Arctic ice thins dramatically

[westwall]

Was always sorta curious................

If the alarmist brigades are so confident that their shit is right, why then are they always having these mental meltdown's on this forum? Ever see Rolling Thunders posts? This guy throws a hideous rant filled temper tantrum every time somebody offers up a view counter to the alarmist view. Check out the tone of EVERY post. Whats up with that anger? Why the pronounced level of being apoised if the level of certainty of your own view is 100%?

IDK....is it a caffeine thing? Backbone of a hershey bar? Small gorgan syndrome? Simple cheesedickishness? Dismay at the precipitous fall of liberal ideology?

What?

trolling blunder is simply deranged, pay him no mind, though it is fun to see him fall apart with his ranting!

 

[westwall]

I'm hoping your right westwall. I really do...I have my pride to lose as one of my friends is a lot like Old rocks and has been on me for years to admit that global warming is occurring and is going to screw us all.

The bad thing is the more I look at the decreasing of the sea ice over the past 50 years and look at the increasing difference between the tsi and the global temperature. I'm starting to be seriously soften to the point where I may have to say that I was partly wrong. He is going to laugh and dance around and front of everyone.

Partly wrong because we're in a natural cycle and much of the warming during the 1880-1940s was because of it. What can't be explained is 1980-2010.

Believe me I have my pride as a person that supposed to understand these things and is looked up to for there weather and science within my group of friends and house hold.

Never, ever let pride get in the way of science. If you're wrong admit it and move on with a better theory. Just be patient, the world is going into another cooling phase and it will become ever more obvious to the point that no matter how hard Hansen et al try and cook the books it will be patently obvious to even a person of diminished capacity can see they are lying. Then, you'll know who the despotic types are and will be able to shun them. This is the information age and their tactics are starting to not work anymore and it's driving them batshit crazy. Just look at trolling blunders posts. He's gone off the deep end and still thinks he's relevent. Poor sod.

 

[westwall]

To the skeptics this is going to come off as alarmism, but I'm going to be honest.

The ice sheets north of greenland are breaking!!! The northern coast green land is now opening up. This is some of the heaviest and oldest sea ice. Some of it to the north is the 5 year stuff of 5-10 meters.

In case you think I'm a chicken little and some how this occurs a lot. Here is the min in 2007. You don't see any open waters north of greenland.

Yeah it's dramatic, and yet there is still no opening at the North Pole which has occured(sic) in the recent past. Remember those pictures of the submarines in open water at the North Pole? In the 1960's? Remember that. This is nothing new or exceptional.

Your delusions must be hardwired into you, walledyedretard, 'cause you sure do hold onto them like grim death no matter how many times they are debunked by the facts. Contrary to your fantasies, this Arctic melting that is opening the polar Northeast and Northwest Passages is both new and very exceptional.

For the first time in human history, the North Pole can be circumnavigated
Melting ice opens up North-west and North-east passages simultaneously. Scientists warn Arctic icecap is entering a 'death spiral'

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
The Independent
Sunday, 31 August 2008
(excerpts)

Open water now stretches all the way round the Arctic, making it possible for the first time in human history to circumnavigate the North Pole, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. New satellite images, taken only two days ago, show that melting ice last week opened up both the fabled North-west and North-east passages, in the most important geographical landmark to date to signal the unexpectedly rapid progress of global warming.

But it is the simultaneous opening – for the first time in at least 125,000 years – of the North-west passage around Canada and the North-east passage around Russia that promises to deliver much the greatest shock. Until recently both had been blocked by ice since the beginning of the last Ice Age.

...But scientists say that such disputes will soon become irrelevant if the ice continues to melt at present rates, making it possible to sail right across the North Pole. They have long regarded the disappearance of the icecap as inevitable as global warming takes hold, though until recently it was not expected until around 2070.

Many scientists now predict that the Arctic ocean will be ice-free in summer by 2030 – and a landmark study this year by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, concluded that there will be no ice between mid-July and mid-September as early as 2013. The tipping point, experts believe, was the record loss of ice last year, reaching a level not expected to occur until 2050. Sceptics then dismissed the unprecedented melting as a freak event, and it was indeed made worse by wind currents and other natural weather patterns.


Moreover, walleyedretard, your whole "submarines in open water at the pole in the 60's" argument is once again based entirely on your bottomless ignorance and gullibility. Spots of open water in the mostly ice covered Arctic ocean have always been a common occurrence in the summer months as the winds move and shift the ice.

Arctic Science Journeys
2000
Arctic Ice Cap
(excerpts)

According to University of Washington oceanographer Dr. Drew Rothrock and other scientists who study the Arctic, open water at the pole is a common occurrence.

ROTHROCK: "There's a lot of open water, a lot of cracks of this size they describe in the sea ice in the summer."

In fact, at any given time during the summer, 10 to 15 percent of the Arctic Ocean is not covered by ice, says Dr. Mark Johnson, a physical oceanographer at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Johnson spends a great deal of time modeling the ever-changing dynamics of the ice cap. He says the six-mile-long opening in the ice—called a lead—that tourists saw, sounds about right for this time of year.

The reason there is open water at the North Pole is because the ice cap is not, as some people might think, a stable, unchanging sheet of ice. Far from it, says Rothrock.

ROTHROCK: "It's a big ocean up there at the North Pole. It has floating sea ice covering it, which is typically about ten feet thick. It's not like an ice sheet or glacier on land, which is the situation at the South Pole. Sea ice is pretty mobile stuff. It moves around. It cracks. It breaks. It piles up. It's always on the go."

...That seems to fit with records from about 1930 to 1960 that show sea ice in the high Arctic was thick and widespread. It also seems to mesh with data from 1960 to 1990, which shows that sea ice became 40 percent thinner overall, according to Rothrock's research.

ROTHROCK: "We've published results from submarine cruises, where they have upward-looking sonar and they are able to determine ice thickness. We took data taken from cruises in the 1990s that we had been party to and compared it to older data from the '50s, '60s and '70s and found quite a large difference."

See these submarines? They are at the North Pole. Notice anything else? No, you wouldn't would you. Loser.

 

[RollingThunder]

Yeah it's dramatic, and yet there is still no opening at the North Pole which has occured(sic) in the recent past. Remember those pictures of the submarines in open water at the North Pole? In the 1960's? Remember that. This is nothing new or exceptional.

Your delusions must be hardwired into you, walledyedretard, 'cause you sure do hold onto them like grim death no matter how many times they are debunked by the facts. Contrary to your fantasies, this Arctic melting that is opening the polar Northeast and Northwest Passages is both new and very exceptional.

For the first time in human history, the North Pole can be circumnavigated
Melting ice opens up North-west and North-east passages simultaneously. Scientists warn Arctic icecap is entering a 'death spiral'

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
The Independent
Sunday, 31 August 2008
(excerpts)

Open water now stretches all the way round the Arctic, making it possible for the first time in human history to circumnavigate the North Pole, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. New satellite images, taken only two days ago, show that melting ice last week opened up both the fabled North-west and North-east passages, in the most important geographical landmark to date to signal the unexpectedly rapid progress of global warming.

But it is the simultaneous opening – for the first time in at least 125,000 years – of the North-west passage around Canada and the North-east passage around Russia that promises to deliver much the greatest shock. Until recently both had been blocked by ice since the beginning of the last Ice Age.

...But scientists say that such disputes will soon become irrelevant if the ice continues to melt at present rates, making it possible to sail right across the North Pole. They have long regarded the disappearance of the icecap as inevitable as global warming takes hold, though until recently it was not expected until around 2070.

Many scientists now predict that the Arctic ocean will be ice-free in summer by 2030 – and a landmark study this year by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, concluded that there will be no ice between mid-July and mid-September as early as 2013. The tipping point, experts believe, was the record loss of ice last year, reaching a level not expected to occur until 2050. Sceptics then dismissed the unprecedented melting as a freak event, and it was indeed made worse by wind currents and other natural weather patterns.


Moreover, walleyedretard, your whole "submarines in open water at the pole in the 60's" argument is once again based entirely on your bottomless ignorance and gullibility. Spots of open water in the mostly ice covered Arctic ocean have always been a common occurrence in the summer months as the winds move and shift the ice.

Arctic Science Journeys
2000
Arctic Ice Cap
(excerpts)

According to University of Washington oceanographer Dr. Drew Rothrock and other scientists who study the Arctic, open water at the pole is a common occurrence.

ROTHROCK: "There's a lot of open water, a lot of cracks of this size they describe in the sea ice in the summer."

In fact, at any given time during the summer, 10 to 15 percent of the Arctic Ocean is not covered by ice, says Dr. Mark Johnson, a physical oceanographer at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Johnson spends a great deal of time modeling the ever-changing dynamics of the ice cap. He says the six-mile-long opening in the ice—called a lead—that tourists saw, sounds about right for this time of year.

The reason there is open water at the North Pole is because the ice cap is not, as some people might think, a stable, unchanging sheet of ice. Far from it, says Rothrock.

ROTHROCK: "It's a big ocean up there at the North Pole. It has floating sea ice covering it, which is typically about ten feet thick. It's not like an ice sheet or glacier on land, which is the situation at the South Pole. Sea ice is pretty mobile stuff. It moves around. It cracks. It breaks. It piles up. It's always on the go."

...That seems to fit with records from about 1930 to 1960 that show sea ice in the high Arctic was thick and widespread. It also seems to mesh with data from 1960 to 1990, which shows that sea ice became 40 percent thinner overall, according to Rothrock's research.

ROTHROCK: "We've published results from submarine cruises, where they have upward-looking sonar and they are able to determine ice thickness. We took data taken from cruises in the 1990s that we had been party to and compared it to older data from the '50s, '60s and '70s and found quite a large difference."

See these submarines? They are at the North Pole. Notice anything else? No, you wouldn't would you. XXXX-no altering post Rolling Thunder-Meister Loser.

I see you're still terminally clueless and confused, walleyedretard.

An account from one crew member, James E. Hester, aboard the USS Skate which surfaced at the North Pole in 1959:

"the Skate found open water both in the summer and following winter. We surfaced near the North Pole in the winter through thin ice less than 2 feet thick. The ice moves from Alaska to Iceland and the wind and tides causes open water as the ice breaks up. The Ice at the polar ice cap is an average of 6-8 feet thick, but with the wind and tides the ice will crack and open into large polynyas (areas of open water), these areas will refreeze over with thin ice. We had sonar equipment that would find these open or thin areas to come up through, thus limiting any damage to the submarine. The ice would also close in and cover these areas crushing together making large ice ridges both above and below the water. We came up through a very large opening in 1958 that was 1/2 mile long and 200 yards wide. The wind came up and closed the opening within 2 hours. On both trips we were able to find open water. We were not able to surface through ice thicker than 3 feet."

Other scientists and experts on the Arctic environment....pointing out that stretches of open water in summertime are very common in the Arctic. Previous Arctic explorers even expressed frustration at being unable to proceed over the ice due precisely to unpredictable areas of open water obstructing their progress. The reason for the areas of open water is that the floating ice is subject to stresses from wind, currents and tides, causing cracking, ridging between slabs, and the creation of open leads of water between separating ice slabs. In winter, open leads quickly freeze over from the sub-zero air temperature, but in summer with the air temperature often above sea water freezing point (-2°C), such leads can remain open for extended periods.
(source)


Meanwhile, getting out of the denier cult bizarroworld and back to the real world, here's what's happening in the Arctic.

Arctic sea ice in record retreat
July 8, 2011
The summer melt season is in full swing in the Arctic, and sea ice there is in record retreat. Arctic sea ice is currently at its lowest extent on record for early July, according to estimates from the National Snow and Ice Data Center and University of Bremen. Moreover, Arctic sea ice volume is at its lowest on record, according to the University of Washington Polar Science Center, and during June 2011, was reduced by nearly half (47%) compared to its maximum at the beginning of the satellite era, in 1979.

 

[Bigfoot]

The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic’s ice cover.

Scientists from NASA

The guy at NASA is a fraud, He has been taking large payments to alter his data.

 

[RollingThunder]

The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic’s ice cover.

Scientists from NASA

The guy at NASA is a fraud, He has been taking large payments to alter his data.

Another denier cult lie that you're gullible enough to fall for, you poor bamboozled dupe.

 

[westwall]

The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic’s ice cover.

Scientists from NASA

The guy at NASA is a fraud, He has been taking large payments to alter his data.

Another denier cult lie that you're gullible enough to fall for, you poor bamboozled dupe.

Sure doofus sure! And I suggest you not alter my post in your quote and you had best go back and fix the ones you altered which I believe is against the rules. But hey that's a typical alarmist game isn't it loser.

 

[RollingThunder]

The guy at NASA is a fraud, He has been taking large payments to alter his data.

Another denier cult lie that you're gullible enough to fall for, you poor bamboozled dupe.

Sure doofus sure! And I suggest you not alter my post in your quote and you had best go back and fix the ones you altered which I believe is against the rules. But hey that's a typical alarmist game isn't it loser.

I suggest you pull your head out of your ass, walleyedretard. But I don't have much hope you actually will.

Why don't you show me the words I "altered" in your posts, dingbat.

 

[Meister]

Another denier cult lie that you're gullible enough to fall for, you poor bamboozled dupe.

Sure doofus sure! And I suggest you not alter my post in your quote and you had best go back and fix the ones you altered which I believe is against the rules. But hey that's a typical alarmist game isn't it loser.

I suggest you pull your head out of your ass, walleyedretard. But I don't have much hope you actually will.

Why don't you show me the words I "altered" in your posts, dingbat.

It doesn't have to be "words", altering a post in any way is against the board rules.

 

[Bigfoot]

The new results, based on data from a NASA Earth-orbiting spacecraft, provide further evidence for the rapid, ongoing transformation of the Arctic’s ice cover.

Scientists from NASA

The guy at NASA is a fraud, He has been taking large payments to alter his data.

Another denier cult lie that you're gullible enough to fall for, you poor bamboozled dupe.

"Six years ago, the United Nations issued a dramatic warning that the world would have to cope with 50 million climate refugees by 2010. But now that those migration flows have failed to materialize, the UN has distanced itself from the forecasts. On the contrary, populations are growing in the regions that had been identified as environmental danger zones."

That didn't happen either I believe it is you that has been duped sir.

 

[gslack]

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years, yet the earth continues to heat up and the polar ice cap continues to melt?

Why?

We went over this already chris... Sunspots are not the only factor in solar radiation or the heat it provides to this planet. Here is what NASA says on it.

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics

Sunspot Cycle Predictions


MSFC Solar Physics Branch members Wilson, Hathaway, and Reichmann have studied the sunspot record for characteristic behavior that might help in predicting future sunspot activity. Our current predictions of solar activity for the next few years can be found at this link. Although sunspots themselves produce only minor effects on solar emissions, the magnetic activity that accompanies the sunspots can produce dramatic changes in the ultraviolet and soft x-ray emission levels. These changes over the solar cycle have important consequences for the Earth's upper atmosphere.

Lets try and keep up shall we?

gslack, Your right about what you're saying as sun spots "only a minimum effect" on the earth's climate, but normally when the number of sun spots are low=low solar flux(solar winds), iradiance, ect. Those do have a impact on global climate. High solar flux normally equal a solar max, which is also going to have a lot of sun spots, but a minimum is going to mean less sun spots and lower solar winds. So christ has a point in that sun spots=solar flux, irradiance on the norm. So it is safe to use sun spots to=those.

This shows that all factors since 1975 have slowly been decreasing. NOT increasing, which you would think it would if it was the driver behind temperature. The past 5-6 years has blown away the minimums from 21, 22, 23 to.

This shows Irradiance even better for a longer period of time and with the global temperature. This is why I say 1955 time frame had the peak and a downward slope in watts/meter^2 from the sun.

Matt sorry but on this I disagree.. To say one can use sunspot activity alone to make the claim the sun isn't causing the warming is completely oversimplifying an much more complex system. Exactly the same type of one-dimensional, linear logic that fuels the CO2 is to blame camp.

You are thinking linearly and not dimensional. Sunposts=one factor, magnetic field behavior of both the sun and the earth= another factor, cloud cover on this planet=another factor, changes in the amount of cosmic rays hitting us (which is directly related to a less active sun)=another factor, and an innumerable amount of other factors known and as of yet unknown to us.

Matt I think higher of you than the other 3 trolls, So I will share a link with you to a site with a lot more in depth information than you will get from any environmental site. Its not the nicest looking or best laid out site but it does a great job of informing a person on the suns cycles and their believed effects.

Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics

Sunspot activity does not necessarily correlate to an increase or decrease in solar irradiation. There is much more to this than a simple counting of sunspots, and every environmental website that backs this or any pro-AGW site period will almost always go for the simple "sunspots" explanation and pretend that solves the suns problem in their theory.

This is BS and a gross oversimplification. Please read that site as closely as you can then ask yourself some questions about what it means and keep the scope of the thing in mind the whole time when you do.

heres a lil bit from that site.

Atmospheric circulation, the cause of weather, is driven by the sun’s energy. Climate is the integral of weather over periods of more than a year. This integral also depends on the flux of solar energy. The same applies to variations in the energy flux caused by the sun’s varying activity. Satellite data show that the “solar constant” S is variable. The solar irradiance decreased from the sunspot maximum 1979 to the minimum 1986, increased again on the way to the next maximum in the 11-year sunspot cycle, and decreased anew in the descending phase. This came as a surprise as it is plausible that the dark sunspots with their strong magnetic fields impede the free flux of energy from the sun’s interior to the outside. Yet P. V. Foukal and J. Lean [22] have shown that bright faculae in the vicinity of sunspots increase even more than sunspots when the activity grows stronger, so that an irradiance surplus is established.

IPCC scientists hold that the corresponding variation in the solar constant (Delta S) is smaller than 0.1% and has no impact on climate that could count in comparison with the greenhouse effect [94]. Yet they fail to appreciate that quotes of 0.1% in the literature refer to the absolute amplitude of the sinusoidal variation in the solar constant, not the whole change from minimum to maximum, or from maximum to minimum [25, 32, 39]. Figure 1 after C. Fröhlich [25] shows this distinctly. The data at the top of the figure, designated by `HF', represent NIMBUS-7 measurements. The smoothed curve shows the 81-day running average related to the interval of three solar rotations of 27days. The horizontal axis indicates the investigated period, above in years, below in days since the first day of 1980. The vertical axis measures the solar constant S in W/m2. The scale in the middle of Figure 1 indicates the range of 0.1%. When this scale is taken to measure the variation in the smoothed curve from the sunspot maximum 1979 to the minimum in 1986, the result is Delta S approximately equal to - 0.22%. IPCC scientists cannot object to this higher value on the grounds that it is not a common practice to assess the total variation in such a way. They proceed equally by relating the rise in global temperature to the minimum at the end of the 19th century and not to the long-term temperature mean.

That equals only two paragraphs so prepare for information overload.

 

[westwall]

Another denier cult lie that you're gullible enough to fall for, you poor bamboozled dupe.

Sure doofus sure! And I suggest you not alter my post in your quote and you had best go back and fix the ones you altered which I believe is against the rules. But hey that's a typical alarmist game isn't it loser.

I suggest you pull your head out of your ass, walleyedretard. But I don't have much hope you actually will.

Why don't you show me the words I "altered" in your posts, dingbat.

What was that youngster? Now don't do it again, got it. Or you'll get sent to naughty corner again!

 

[gslack]

Sure doofus sure! And I suggest you not alter my post in your quote and you had best go back and fix the ones you altered which I believe is against the rules. But hey that's a typical alarmist game isn't it loser.

I suggest you pull your head out of your ass, walleyedretard. But I don't have much hope you actually will.

Why don't you show me the words I "altered" in your posts, dingbat.

What was that youngster? Now don't do it again, got it. Or you'll get sent to naughty corner again!

He is a student of oldsocks, and we all know he is not above going back and fixing things to save his butt. Nice to see the apple fell straight down on that tree...

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm hoping your right westwall. I really do...I have my pride to lose as one of my friends is a lot like Old rocks and has been on me for years to admit that global warming is occurring and is going to screw us all.

The bad thing is the more I look at the decreasing of the sea ice over the past 50 years and look at the increasing difference between the tsi and the global temperature. I'm starting to be seriously soften to the point where I may have to say that I was partly wrong. He is going to laugh and dance around and front of everyone.

Partly wrong because we're in a natural cycle and much of the warming during the 1880-1940s was because of it. What can't be explained is 1980-2010.

Believe me I have my pride as a person that supposed to understand these things and is looked up to for there weather and science within my group of friends and house hold.

Never, ever let pride get in the way of science. If you're wrong admit it and move on with a better theory. Just be patient, the world is going into another cooling phase and it will become ever more obvious to the point that no matter how hard Hansen et al try and cook the books it will be patently obvious to even a person of diminished capacity can see they are lying. Then, you'll know who the despotic types are and will be able to shun them. This is the information age and their tactics are starting to not work anymore and it's driving them batshit crazy. Just look at trolling blunders posts. He's gone off the deep end and still thinks he's relevent. Poor sod.

Just keep repeating the nonsense, Walleyes. Won't make it any more correct, but will help with your mental problems.

 

[gslack]

I'm hoping your right westwall. I really do...I have my pride to lose as one of my friends is a lot like Old rocks and has been on me for years to admit that global warming is occurring and is going to screw us all.

The bad thing is the more I look at the decreasing of the sea ice over the past 50 years and look at the increasing difference between the tsi and the global temperature. I'm starting to be seriously soften to the point where I may have to say that I was partly wrong. He is going to laugh and dance around and front of everyone.

Partly wrong because we're in a natural cycle and much of the warming during the 1880-1940s was because of it. What can't be explained is 1980-2010.

Believe me I have my pride as a person that supposed to understand these things and is looked up to for there weather and science within my group of friends and house hold.

Never, ever let pride get in the way of science. If you're wrong admit it and move on with a better theory. Just be patient, the world is going into another cooling phase and it will become ever more obvious to the point that no matter how hard Hansen et al try and cook the books it will be patently obvious to even a person of diminished capacity can see they are lying. Then, you'll know who the despotic types are and will be able to shun them. This is the information age and their tactics are starting to not work anymore and it's driving them batshit crazy. Just look at trolling blunders posts. He's gone off the deep end and still thinks he's relevent. Poor sod.

Just keep repeating the nonsense, Walleyes. Won't make it any more correct, but will help with your mental problems.

Yeah somehow knew you wouldn't think there is a problem with letting pride get in the way of science.. LOL,

 

[Bigfoot]

1 MYTH Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming

FACT Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.

2 MYTH Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die

FACT In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn't reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.

3 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).

FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.

4 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.

FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

5 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.

FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.

6 MYTH Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet

FACT The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

7 MYTH The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through 'global warming'

FACT Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.

8 MYTH The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes.

FACT As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are 'just another tax' on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials.

9 MYTH Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say 'global warming' is real and that we must do something now.

FACT Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings.
The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.

10 MYTH There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.

FACT There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.
Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.

 

[westwall]

I'm hoping your right westwall. I really do...I have my pride to lose as one of my friends is a lot like Old rocks and has been on me for years to admit that global warming is occurring and is going to screw us all.

The bad thing is the more I look at the decreasing of the sea ice over the past 50 years and look at the increasing difference between the tsi and the global temperature. I'm starting to be seriously soften to the point where I may have to say that I was partly wrong. He is going to laugh and dance around and front of everyone.

Partly wrong because we're in a natural cycle and much of the warming during the 1880-1940s was because of it. What can't be explained is 1980-2010.

Believe me I have my pride as a person that supposed to understand these things and is looked up to for there weather and science within my group of friends and house hold.

Never, ever let pride get in the way of science. If you're wrong admit it and move on with a better theory. Just be patient, the world is going into another cooling phase and it will become ever more obvious to the point that no matter how hard Hansen et al try and cook the books it will be patently obvious to even a person of diminished capacity can see they are lying. Then, you'll know who the despotic types are and will be able to shun them. This is the information age and their tactics are starting to not work anymore and it's driving them batshit crazy. Just look at trolling blunders posts. He's gone off the deep end and still thinks he's relevent. Poor sod.

Just keep repeating the nonsense, Walleyes. Won't make it any more correct, but will help with your mental problems.

Pride goeth before the fall olfraud, thanks for the assist!

 

[Old Rocks]

Hey Big-Foot-In-The-Mouth, here is the satellite data from Dr. Spencer;

UAH Global Temperature Update for June, 2011: +0.31 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

Now show me where that represents a cooling in the last two or three years. You spout totally stupid lies.

 

[Chris]

As of July 17, 2011, Arctic sea ice extent was 7.56 million square kilometers (2.92 million square miles), 2.24 million square kilometers (865,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. Sea ice is particularly low in the Barents, Kara, and Laptev Seas (the far northern Atlantic region), Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

 

[Bigfoot]

-------------------------------------------------------

October 2009 U.S. temperatures according to NOAA were the third coldest in 115 years of record keeping, 4 degrees below the average temperature for this month. October 2009 also had the most snow in the U.S. than has ever been recorded for that month.

Germany recorded in 2009 its lowest October temperature in history. New Zealand had record low October temperatures and record late snows link China had the worst October snowstorms in recorded history, 40 people died and over 9,000 buildings collapsed.

Siberia may have had its coldest winter in history in 2009-2010. European and Asian temperatures in the winter 2009-2010 were well below normal.

October 2008 to January 2009 temps were well below normal According to the NCDC U.S. temperatures in October 2009 was on average the third coldest in 116 years, November was the 4th coldest, and February 2010 was the 29th coldest. U.S. temperatures December '09 - February '10 were well below normal. UK experiences coldest May temps in 15 years U.S. temps Nov '09 to May '10 remain mostly below normal, October '09 through March '10 was the snowiest on record in the northern hemisphere.

In February 2010, the Northern Hemisphere had the second largest area of snow coverage ever recorded link and North America had the most snow cover ever recorded. Snow coverage in the Northern hemisphere has been growing since 1998 link. Snow in areas where it usually does not snow can only be because temperatures are colder, and not from global warming/ The additional snow was not because of higher levels of humidity, according to NCDC February '10 was the 47th driest in 116 years.

July 2010, South America experiences historic cold weather. Argentina experienced its coldest winter in 40 years.

In spite of all the hot weather of late, according to NOAA 62% of the continental U.S. had below normal temperatures January-July 2010.

---------------------------------------------------

Now Oldrocks you want to address me the way you did in the previous post just because we disagree, you can go to hell. It is certainly easy to tell that you are from Portland, some of the rudest and dumbest sons-of-bitches I have ever known are from the Eugene and Portland areas.

**Links to all of the above "cooling data" are available and there are many more proven temperature readings from around the world I can also document. If you want the links you can apologize for your immaturity and I will cheerfully provide them for you. If not you can just keep on being a shit.