Global Warming

[Derach]

Quote by: Sonart . So what! You still don't seem to comprehend that 380 ppm of CO2 is still 100 ppm higher than the normal increase after an Ice Age - almost DOUBLE the normal increase - and higher than its been in 50 million years. Normally CO2 only makes up around 0.028 PERCENT of our atmosphere with yearly fluctuations of about 3 to 8 ppm. 380 ppm the highest it's been for tens of millions of years, and to make things worse, it's all happened in only 200 years! So whether your pathetic little mind can comprehend it or not, by that standard, "3 fucking percent" is actually quite HUGE, especially when compounded year after year after year. And try to remember that it doesn't go away for a long time. It becomes part of the cycle that has evolved over hundreds of millions of years. Oh wow... really!? That much, huh? And it's been 5.5 quadrillion metric tons for millions upon millions of years, hasn't it, cupcake. Of which NORMALLY, only, AT MOST, 280 ppm, or 0.028%, is CO2. By weight as a percentage of atmosphere, that would be about 144 Trillion tons of CO2. With me so far, cupcake? So in the last 20 years we've added around... let's see.... 20 x 20 billion tons (we'll be conservative, just for you) ...that comes to 40 TRILLION TONS of CO2 that we've added only in the last 20 years. Or about... omigosh... 27% HIGHER than it normally should be. See, your problem is that you think you're smart, yet you haven't the vaguest comprehension of scale, and a 3% difference on global scale is MASSIVE! Make sense, cupcake? But hey, don't take my word for it. I mean, what do I know. Take these guy's word for it... National Academy of Sciences American Geophysical Union American Meteorological Society National Weather Association National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NASA American Association for the Advancement of Science / The Journal Science American Chemical Society US National Research Council Journal of the American Medical Association Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes The National Geographic Society the World Meteorological Organization Scientific American Magazine The Journal Nature .

The issue is not so much the current or historical measurements of atmospheric gasses or temperature as it is the impact we (non-3rd world country 'westerners') can possibly have on it and what the future will hold whether we do anything pro-actively or not. My opinion on the whole debate has been constant ... the science is incomplete. Not incomplete in the sense that we don't know what the trends have been over the last 50-100 yrs, but in the sense that we don't know what we can do (if anything) that will ensure a habitable climate indefinitely. History is replete with examples of human intervention wreaking more havoc that it helped with the best of intentions ... and the climate seems to be the ultimate testing ground ... with the most dire of consequences if we happen to be wrong about the prudent approach to the 'problem'.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Derach My opinion on the whole debate has been constant ... the science is incomplete.

Color me so surprised.

So explain it to me, Derach. Science has been studying global warming for 40 years and studying it intensely for the last 25 years. Yours and the rest of the anti-government opinion on the whole debate has indeed been constant that the science is incomplete - for the last 25 years.

So please, just give us some idea... if the science is sufficiently complete for...

National Academy of Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Meteorological Society
National Weather Association
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NASA
American Association for the Advancement of Science / The Journal Science
American Chemical Society
US National Research Council
Journal of the American Medical Association
Stanford, Oxford, MIT and gawd knows how many other univeristies
Scripps and Woodshole Oceanographic Research Institutes
The National Geographic Society
the World Meteorological Organization
Scientific American Magazine
The Journal Nature

...to make official statements that the basic science is settled, when do you imagine it will sufficiently complete for YOU?

Quote by: Derach Not incomplete in the sense that we don't know what the trends have been over the last 50-100 yrs, but in the sense that we don't know what we can do (if anything) that will ensure a habitable climate indefinitely.

Well sure, that makes sense ... so obviously the answer to that is to do absolutely nothing now, and to wait as long as possible until it really is far too late.

Quote by: Derach with the most dire of consequences if we happen to be wrong about the prudent approach to the 'problem'.

Again, what exactly is prudent about doing nothing indefinitely? When, in YOUR opinion might it finally be prudent to start saving our own lives?

Global warming 'past the point of no return' - Sept. 2005 - "A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years.

They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating.

The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a "tipping point" beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically."

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

How old are you, Derach? I ask because I suspect I'll never live to see the worst affects of global warming really start to kick in, in say, 30 to 50 years. I'm just hoping, however, that you and Georgia and Apeman and rest of the skeptic horde live well into the second half of the century, so you can look back and kick yourselves.

In the movie, Kingdom of Heaven, Sir Godfrey administers an oath of knighthood to young Balian, and then smacks Balian hard in the face with the back of his hand. "And that's so you remember it." Here's hoping you remember these conversations.

Now young master Zombdi At 13, I know he'll be around long enough to choke on his naivete, although I'm sure he'll find someone to blame besides himself.

.

[Sonart]

.

Here, anyone feel like scaring the crap out of themselves?

Here's a little 50 minute video on Global Dimming.

Global dimming is the concept that warming skeptics love to constantly refer to from the 70's - the great 'New Ice Age' scare - to point out how fickle science is. Except that global dimming actually turns out to be quite real. It has to do with particulate pollution, rather than green house gases. Things like dust, smoke and vapors. Unlike AGW, particulates prevent sunlight from reaching the ground and heating the surface, thus leading, over time, to a global cooling affect, plus a host of other bad consequences, such as an inability to breath.

Now the Clean Air Act and other worldwide environmental advances did a great deal to remove particulate pollution from the atmosphere. Unfortunately, that very dimming affect had been holding back the worst of the greenhouse global warming effects, so the warming began surging upward dramatically in the mid '70s.

But it just gets better. There was a study done in the days after 9/11. Recall that after the attacks, all air traffic was grounded. Climatologist David Travis took that opportunity to conduct a study he'd been dreaming about for years, but thought impossible. Would the sudden disappearance of commercial jet traffic - and it's particulate pollution - over the U.S. have any measurable affect on surface temperatures.

Indeed... "During the three-day commercial flight hiatus, when the artificial clouds known as contrails all but disappeared, the variations in high and low temperatures increased by 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) each day,"

And here you all thought humans can't affect the climate.

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

From the 2005 Horizon video conclusion...

"This is the real sting in the tale. Solve the problem of global dimming, and the world could get considerably hotter. And this is not just theory... it may already be happening. In western Europe, the steps we have taken to reduce particle pollution have started to bear fruit in a noticeable improvement in air quality, and even a slight reduction in global dimming over the last few years.

Yet at the same time, after decades in which they held steady, European temperatures have started rapidly to rise, culminating in the savage summer of 2003, where in France, people died by the thousands.

Could this be the penalty of reducing global dimming, without tackling the root cause of global warming? This is the crux of the problem. While the greenhouse affect has been warming the planet, it now seems global dimming has been cooling it down. So the warming caused by carbon dioxide has been hidden from us by the cooling from air pollution. But that situation is now starting to change.

Climatologists have begun to worry that global dimming has led them to underestimate the true power of global warming. They fear that the earth may be far more vulnerable to greenhouse gases that previously thought.

The models that everyone has been using to forecast climate change predict a maximum warming of 5 degrees by the end of the century. Temperatures could rise twice as fast as previously thought, with irreverseable damage (by 2030). Once the Greenland ice cap starts to melt, nothing will stop it. Much of the worlds major cities will be living on borrowed time. Decade by decade, the risk of catastrophic flooding would increase inexorably. But unless action is taken, it won't stop there, because after Greenland, the world's tropical rain forests will start to wither in the heat. And as the rain forests burned away, it would release vast amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, driving global warming still further. In just a century, the world could be 10 degrees hotter, a warming more rapid than any in earth's history.

If this were to happen, the landscape of England would be utterly transformed, to a North African climate. Most British plant species could not survive a north African climate. With vegetation dying everywhere, soil erosion would become a severe problem. From a green and pleasant land, England would become a country of extremes, with winter flooding giving way to summer dust storms.

And it will be far worse elsewhere. Ten degree warming in a hot country will make it essentially uninhabitable. And just when one might think that things could get no worse, in the far north a ten degree warming might be enough to release a vast natural store of the worst greenhouse gas, methane, bigger than all the oil and coal reserves of the planet.

It this point, whatever we did to curb our emissions, it would be too late. Ten thousand billion tons of methane, a greenhouse gas eight times stronger than carbon dioxide, would be released into the atmosphere. The earth's climate would be spinning out of our control, heading towards temperatures unseen in four billion years.

However, the easy solution, just keep on polluting and hope that global dimming would protect us would be equally suicidal."


.

[Derach]

'Climatologists have begun to worry that global dimming has led them to underestimate the true power of global warming.'


That doesn't sound a little like political double-speak to you?

OK, we are industrially 'dimming' the planet which is actually keeping a lid on the global warming we have created! Global warming would actually be WORSE if we stopped creating the pollutants that causes it in the first place!!

That's what I mean by the science being incomplete. The science in the sense of what the best approach is to act on. An investment in better energy managment is needed. 3rd world countries need to be allowed (and encouraged ... invested in) to have safe and efficient energy programs. Its not all about the atmospheric #'s ... those #'s are important, sure ... but they're not the end all of how to approach the problem. Investment is needed in the areas that will make the most efficient changes ... too often it seems the solutions that are proposed trend more towards the politically expedient than the real world, long AND short term implications.

Seems your posts prove my point more than anything ... the science (including the social consequences) is incomplete. In some cases, doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing. In each case, previous paradigms about the cause/effect of burning fossil fuels is proven to be incorrect, and the predictions for future conditions have to be changed.

And the inflammatory language like 'saving our own lives' doesn't give a lot of credibility to your cause ... especially when in the very next post you say you'll 'never live to see the worse effects of GW'.

More people die each year of cancer, drug abuse, cigarettes and auto crashes than do as a result of GW (at least in any provable way ... would a tsunami not have happened in 2020 if we had passed Kyoto in '98? ... for example).

Global Warming might be responsible for a handful of deaths this holiday season ... there might be a chance there is something meaningful we can do about it given enough resources and commitment on world levels.

Auto accidents will kill many more people, and almost every one of those deaths is tangibly preventable with an investment a fraction the cost of de-industrializing the world.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Derach That doesn't sound a little like political double-speak to you?

No, it sounds like scientists who, after accumulating mountains of new data about our global climate over the last 20 years, are making disturbing new conclusions from it.

Quote by: Derach That's what I mean by the science being incomplete.

No, that's science filling in the blanks. And not only does this thesis not contest the facts of AGW, it confirms even more that it's happening faster than predicted.

Quote by: Derach Seems your posts prove my point more than anything ... the science (including the social consequences) is incomplete.

Except that the more complete it gets, the more it proves we need to do something NOW!!

So kindly answer my question, Derach:

If the science is sufficiently complete for (See List) to make official statements that the basic science is settled, when do you imagine it will sufficiently complete for YOU?

Quote by: Derach More people die each year of cancer, drug abuse, cigarettes and auto crashes than do as a result of GW (at least in any provable way ... would a tsunami not have happened in 2020 if we had passed Kyoto in '98? ... for example).

Now you're simply demonstrating wanton ignorance. Global warming doesn't work that way AND YOU KNOW IT.

.

[Nono]

Yes, Derach, you're mixing apples and oranges there in a way that seems determined to demonstrate you don't know your ass from your elbow.

[Derach]

I'll repeat 'doing something' is not what we need ... doing the right thing(s) for the right reasons is.

Nono - I question the ability of anyone to differentiate their body parts who will rally to make drastic changes in the lifestyles of billions of people without solid, accurate, demonstrable results made by institutions with a history of accurately demonstrating a cause/effect relationship between whatever elements they propose be regulated.

Has the rigid emissions requirments of diesel engines had the expected effect on the actual tangible risks GW poses?

Will those changes made in 1st world countries be enough to offset huge increases in the dirty emissions of emerging markets in asia?

And within those questions, the question of cost has to be considered:

Would promoting cleaner (and abundant) natural gas conversions for more heating applications be a better investment than, say, huge investments in wind power in areas it is inefficient with today's technology (for instance)?

And my point remains about more immediate threats to your grandchildren than what climatologists are predicting for the next 50 yrs (for the moment). Even the climatologists cannot agree to a reasonable solution that is fair and global that can be implemented that will reduce GW.

Besides, what would you consider having made progress in GW? A cooling trend? Lower levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? Fewer hurricanes? Fewer heat-related deaths (cuz there's LOTS we can do to reduce them without pouring money into questionable and politically motivated approaches to reducing GW)? Lower ocean levels? Growing glaciers?

Much like I'd like an answer to the question of what a victory in the 'war on terrorism' would look like, what would a victory in the 'war on global warming' look like?

[Nono]

This is a giant cop-out. It's apparent that massive fossil-fuel consumption (hell, just massive consumption) is causing a major climatic breakdown. Say you'd been hitting the bottle hard for a long time and your liver starts to crumble, what would total hepatic recovery look like? (This is the equivalent of your question.) You might not know exactly what it would look like, but I'm guessing you would cut down on your drinking. Either that or sink into total denial or complete abdication.

Yes, a cooling trend that brought us back to the relative stability we've known in recent centuries would be about right ------ since you ask.

As for "emerging markets in asia", they're emerging through that haze of ideologically rigid market fundamentalism, which America preaches more fervently than anybody else. This is all connected you see.

A lot more needs to be rethought than just the kind of fuel we use for our cars and the kind of bulbs we screw into the socket.
And it has to be rethought --- all of it --- urgently.

[Derach]

You've bought into the hysteria.

A better analogy would be the clamor to keep pregnant women away from microwave ovens when they first became available in the early 80's.

I have no problem with rethinking how we power our civilization.

I have a problem with affecting the lifestyles of private citizens without knowing if or how the changes will 'improve the climate'.

If the situation is as dire and critical as you claim, the more reason to make sure decisions that are made are not knee-jerk or rash.

Reminiscent of the hysteria propegated before the push for TARP.

[Cruella]

This thread and "Global Warming with Seth & Amy" thread have been merged.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Nono This is a giant cop-out.

That was going to be my words exactly. Ten years ago it was "There is no global warming, so we don't need to do anything". Five years ago it was "Ok, so the world is warming, but it's not our fault, it's just a natural fluctuation that will reverse, so we shouldn't do anything". Now it's, "Ok, so the world is warming, we probably caused it, but we shouldn't do anything until we know exactly what the right thing is."

In other words. We still shouldn't do anything. AGAIN I'll ask you, Derach... at what point do we start taking action to save ourselves?

Quote by: Derach Will those changes made in 1st world countries be enough to offset huge increases in the dirty emissions of emerging markets in asia?

Another cop-out, artificial us against them posturing. Someone needs to take the reins and LEAD the rest of the world.

Besides, the U.S. creates over 4 times the per capita emissions as do the Chinese, has 9 times the GDP, 25 times the number of cars/person, half the green measures as a percentage of total stimulus, fuel economy standards of 25 mpg vs. 35 mpg in China

We have over twice the per capita CO2 emissions as Europe, twice as much as Japan and over FIFTEEN times as much as India.

Nor is leading the way a losing proposition... by taking the lead in the development of green technology, we dramatically reduce our dependence on imported oil - the single greatest portion of our negative balance of trade - which we rely on from an endless list of unstable, if not outright hostile, sources that directly threatens our national security.

We also create a domestic market for innovative alternative energy, as well as energy efficient technology that will dramatically increase our productivity and competitiveness, to which the rest of the world will once again COME TO US.

Did the market wait to hash out which was better, Beta or VHS? Plasma or LCD? CD vs. DVD? No, they forged ahead and let the market shake it out. We should start doing whatever we can as soon as we can. If better solutions come along, we adapt.

You've bought into the hysteria.

After 40 years of study, the "hysteria" is based in increasingly solid science, which says that "If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, then you don't know what the heck is going on."


.

[rez]

Quote by: Derach I have no problem with rethinking how we power our civilization.

rethinking causes a stop to production and a start to education really. Where are all those old coal miners going to go?

From the late 80s on to the the 90s and now...the economy was the main concern, not the earth's temperature.

The time for our commitment to the earth's atmosphere comes during the great recession. How great is that? And we have to contest with science illiterates?

[NoJingoLingo]

Quote by: Derach The issue is not so much the current or historical measurements of atmospheric gasses or temperature as it is the impact we (non-3rd world country 'westerners') can possibly have on it and what the future will hold whether we do anything pro-actively or not. My opinion on the whole debate has been constant ... the science is incomplete. Not incomplete in the sense that we don't know what the trends have been over the last 50-100 yrs, but in the sense that we don't know what we can do (if anything) that will ensure a habitable climate indefinitely. History is replete with examples of human intervention wreaking more havoc that it helped with the best of intentions ... and the climate seems to be the ultimate testing ground ... with the most dire of consequences if we happen to be wrong about the prudent approach to the 'problem'.

And therefore your solution is to wait and see...
Shipmate: "well captain, the ship is taking on water should we start bailing yet?"
Captain: "Well we're still afloat so let's see how high thwe water will get before we start sinking"
Shipmate: "we're taking on water, isn't that sinking?"
Captian: "Maybe it will stop leaking or maybe it won't leak enough to drown us, let's wait and see".

Is that basically your argument?

[Sonart]

.


Shipmate: "Captain, the ship is taking on water... should we start bailing yet?"
Captain: "Well we're still afloat so let's see how high the water will get before we start sinking"
Shipmate: "We're taking on water, isn't that sinking?"
Captain: "Maybe it will stop leaking or maybe it won't leak enough to drown us, let's wait and see".

Because, after all, bailing would draw valuable resources away from the normal productive and profitable functions of the crew, now wouldn't it.


.

[Georgia]

Quote by: Sonart Global warming 'past the point of no return' - Sept. 2005 - "A record loss of sea ice in the Arctic this summer has convinced scientists that the northern hemisphere may have crossed a critical threshold beyond which the climate may never recover. Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years. They believe global warming is melting Arctic ice so rapidly that the region is beginning to absorb more heat from the sun, causing the ice to melt still further and so reinforcing a vicious cycle of melting and heating. The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a "tipping point" beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically.".

Some observations:
1) The same scientific discovery could have been made 20,000 years ago except substitute "Arctic" for "North America".

2) They don't tell you the Antarctic ice pack is thickening:
Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening

Their finding comes less than a week after a separate paper in Nature reported that Antarctica's harsh desert valleys — long considered a bellwether for global climate change — have grown noticeably cooler since the mid-1980s.

3) If it's too late and we're all going to burn and die horrific deaths then we should live it up while we still can.

Quote by: Sonart How old are you, Derach? I ask because I suspect I'll never live to see the worst affects of global warming really start to kick in, in say, 30 to 50 years. I'm just hoping, however, that you and Georgia and Apeman and rest of the skeptic horde live well into the second half of the century, so you can look back and kick yourselves

That's really scary Sonart.
Back in the 70's it was a catastrophic ice age that was going to kill us all before it reversed to global warming.
Question:
Exactly what is going to happen in 30-50 years that has not been predicted to happen in the next 20 years back in the 1980's?

If the scary doomsayers were correct back then I'd likely be selling ocean front property here in Atlanta.

They had near record snowfall in the North Eastern US last weekend right here at the end of December. Imagine that!
Also, Hawaii had near record rainfall at the same time- just as the seasons there are changing. If that doesn't sound alarm bells I don't know what would.
To some people, both recent examples must be solid proof of global warming.

[rez]

Quote by: Georgia;677516 They had [B near record snowfall [/B]in the North Eastern US last weekend right here at the end of December. Imagine that!

Global Warming contrarians are very funny and odd. Because they are so ignorant of science they often post information that supports global warming when they are trying to post information that doesn't.

Increased heating of the earths surface causes evaporation. Depending on the location this evaporation into the atmosphere will cause an extreme dryness or an extreme wetness.

In the case of the east coast...Florida received a lot of rain during a time of year that it doesn't see rain. That rain moved up into the cold air and became snow.......

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Georgia 2) They don't tell you the Antarctic ice pack is thickening: Researchers find Antarctic ice is thickening - USA Today

That's why I like to put the dates next to the name of my sources. Note the copyright date of your story... 2002

Study: Antarctic glaciers melting faster than thought - USA Today, Feb. 2009 - "Glaciers in Antarctica are melting faster and across a much wider area than previously thought, a development that threatens to raise sea levels worldwide and force millions of people to flee low-lying areas, scientists said Wednesday."

In the middle of a 'Cooling Trend' yet. Boy, some cooling trend.

Giant glacier in Antarctic is melting four times faster than thought - TimesOnline, Aug. 2009 - "Satellite records show that if the melting of the Pine Island Glacier in west Antarctica goes on accelerating at current rates, the main section will have disappeared in 100 years, 500 years sooner than previously thought."

First Signs of Melting Seen in East Antarctica - Discovery News, Oct. 2009 - "Antarctica's western ice sheet has been melting for some time and now the East Antarctica Ice Sheet, is beginning to crumble."


But thanks for playing, Georgia.

Quote by: Georgia That's really scary Sonart. Back in the 70's it was a catastrophic ice age that was going to kill us all before it reversed to global warming. Question: Exactly what is going to happen in 30-50 years that has not been predicted to happen in the next 20 years back in the 1980's?

LOL!! Odd that you should bring this up, Georgia, since I only just put up a lengthy post on that very subject, in Post #2283, just 12 posts up from yours, on this very page. Ignoring that this is one of the biggest red herrings in the skeptic arsenal, it actually turns out the 70's "Ice Age Scare" was based on fact.

It's analagous to Albert Einstein's "Cosmological Constant", a mathematical adjustment he made to his theory of relativity to achieve a stationary universe. He abandoned it what Hubble discovered that the universe was expanding. What Einstein didn't know was that his constant was actually correct, but for reasons he didn't yet understand... the existence of Dark Energy which wasn't known until around 2004.

Same with the global cooling, or more accurately, 'Global Dimming'. The theory was quite correct, but when the globe started warming rapidly in the mid 70's, folks figured it was nonsense. However, we now know to the contrary. Human particulate pollution - dust, smoke and vapor - were indeed cooling the planet, but was kept to a minimum by the counter forces of global warming. But during the '70s, after the U.S. and Europe enacted major clean air legislation, like the Clean Air Act, there was much less particulate air pollution and without it's cooling affect, global warming really began to take off.

Watch the video I linked in the earlier post. It's a doozy!

Seriously, Georgia... do you have any arguments that weren't already old ten years ago?

Quote by: Georgia They had near record snowfall in the North Eastern US last weekend right here at the end of December. Imagine that!

No one ever suggested that global warming would cancel winter. Just make it much shorter and nastier. But bless your little heart for making global warming judgments based on yet another 10 year old fallacy... observing local weather. Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists - Dec. 2009


.

[Georgia]

Quote by: rez In the case of the east coast...Florida received a lot of rain during a time of year that it doesn't see rain. That rain moved up into the cold air and became snow.......

I see, are you saying snow storms in the North East US is caused by global warming?

Georgia is one state above Florida, and the entire region usually has rain in any season change. Maybe you weren't aware the leaves had finished falling from the trees only a couple weeks ago as this is the time for Southern seasonal changes.

[Georgia]

Quote by: Sonart . That's why I like to put the dates next to the name of my sources. Note the copyright date of your story... 2002 Study: Antarctic glaciers melting faster than thought - USA Today, Feb. 2009 - "Glaciers in Antarctica are melting faster and across a much wider area than previously thought, a development that threatens to raise sea levels worldwide and force millions of people to flee low-lying areas, scientists said Wednesday."

That's odd, this date is 2009 too:
Arctic Sea Ice Increases at Record Rate

Certainly the 30 year arctic trend in ice area is downward, even the most committed global warming scientist has to admit this happens regularly in climate along with regular 30 year uptrends. The questions are, did we cause it or not, and was CO2 the instigating factor. The rapid recovery of ice levels has to have some meaning regarding the severity of the problem. This goes directly in the face of accelerated global warming and the doom and gloom scenarios promoted by our politicians and polyscienticians.

Quote by: Sonart . No one ever suggested that global warming would cancel winter. Just make it much shorter and nastier. But bless your little heart for making global warming judgments based on yet another 10 year old fallacy... observing local weather. Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists - Dec. 2009

Yes, I understand that colder weather is caused by warmer weather and it's unusual for snow to fall in December when it usually falls and is sometimes heavy which is certainly caused by global warming. I bet I can find claims that perfectly normal weather cycles are caused by global warming.
All I have to do is set all common sense aside, anyone can do it.


You still didn't answer this:

Quote by: Georgia Question: Exactly what is going to happen in 30-50 years that has not been predicted to happen in the next 20 years back in the 1980's? If the scary doomsayers were correct back then I'd likely be selling ocean front property here in Atlanta.

[rez]

Quote by: Georgia I see, are you saying snow storms in the North East US is caused by global warming?

Nope not at all. You need to re-read what I wrote and try again.