Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Maximum

It has been widely reported the Arctic sea ice extent this year was not only a record low for a maximum extent, but it also came very early. What does this mean? Truthfully, not all that much by itself. After all, some year has to have the minimum maximum and there is a lot fluctuation from one year to the next.

Just what does it mean to say, 'sea ice extent' anyway? The answer to that question reveals why it is so difficult to model the ice extent. The accepted standard for sea ice extent is the area of the ocean that has at least 15% ice cover. Let's do some math and you can see the problem.

Suppose we have, just for example, 1000 square kilometers of 100% ice coverage. If 25% of that ice melts, we now have 1000 square kilometers of 75% ice coverage. Under the 15% rule, they are the same. Now, let's suppose the wind and currents break this up and expands that ice into an area of 1500 square miles. This area will now have an average ice cover of 50%. Under the 15% rule, we have seen an increase in ice extent of 50% even though we have 25% less ice.

The reverse is also true. If we had started with the 1500 square kilometers of 50% coverage, wind and currents could compress this ice into an area of 1000 square kilometers and 75% coverage. This is a reduction in sea ice extent, even though we have the same amount of ice.

The bigger question is, how does this fit in the long-term trend and that is very revealing.

Here is the sea ice trend for March (through 2014), the normal month of maximum extent:

Source: NSIDC
Now we're talking about some issues. Very clearly, the maximum extent that occurs every year is trending down, even with the annual fluctuation. March 2015 will be even lower than the lowest point on this graph, well below the trend line.

Let's compare a few other graphics.

This is a plot of the winter Arctic sea ice extent (including the maximum extent) for the years of 1980 through 1989. The dark solid line in the middle is the 1981 - 2010 average. Almost every year was above the average line for the entire period plotted.:


Source: NSIDC


This is the same plot for the years of 1990 through 1999. Now we see several years plotting below the average line.:

Source: NSIDC



Now, compare to this plot showing the years of 2006 through 2015 (the incomplete line on the bottom). Now, the extent plots below the average for almost all points.:

Source: NSIDC

When you compare these three plots you can see that the extent is decreasing rapidly. Not only that, we can see there were places that routinely had ice cover in 1980 that have not seen ice for decades.


Now, that statement about this being the minimum maximum means something.

And, keep in mind this is what is happening in the dark of the winter. There can be no mistaken belief it is caused by some reduction in sunlight. There is only one possible explanation - the Arctic Region is getting warmer, even in the winter time. Some combination of warmer air and warmer seas is keeping the ice from forming the way it used to.

By the way, in the same vein, I read an article describing how the snow in Wyoming is melting earlier every year and is now melting 16 days earlier than it was in the 1970s.

Coincidence?


40 comments:

  1. Constant GardenerMarch 26, 2015 at 1:19 AM

    Thanks, Obama!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would seem to me having the same amount of energy bouncing around in more molecules would still be the same amount of energy added. Would a good analagy be putting the same heating element in a 1,000 gallon pool and a 10,000 gallon pool? But what I think you are ignoring is the other means by which energy is released from CO2 which is by collision with other molecules primarily N2 and O2. Since the amount of CO2 is so small wouldn't this acount for most of the energy transmission within the atmosphere? Why would you assume that 100% of the energy received by CO2 from IR would be transmitted by out going IR anyway? Assuming what I say is correct, then an increase of CO2 would result in increased convection - but a very small increase.

    Plus since the atmospheric pressure decreases dramatically with altitude excited molecules (regardless of the means of energy transmission) would convect and cool off by the ideal gas law, which is a given. Hence excited CO2 molecules should rise and cool off. Since at any altitude up to where the ozone layer exists lower altitudes are warmer how could heat travel down? Heat can not transfer from a colder body to a warmer body.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But, we're not discussing the same amount of energy bouncing around. The greenhouse gases trap energy and prevent it from leaving as easily as it otherwise would. At the same time, energy in the form of visible light is still coming in at the same rate as before. In this manner, the amount of energy in the system keeps going up.

    You are correct when you say the primary way CO2 gives up energy (at least in a dense atmosphere) is through collision, primarily with N2 and O2. But, keep in mind the reverse is also true. CO2 will receive energy through collisions, as well. As CO2 transfers more energy to the air, the air will get hotter and begin to transfer some of that energy back to the CO2. The process is very complicated and this part of the reason why doubling the amount of CO2 does not lead to a doubling of the greenhouse effect. Thank goodness or we would have been literally toasted long ago.

    Applying the ideal gas law to higher altitudes is a tricky proposition. Generally speaking, gas from lower altitudes is not transporting up to higher altitudes. Yes, it does happen (watch a thunderstorm form for a good example), but the gases in the upper atmosphere generally take many years to get up there. Plus, heat trapped within a molecule is not subject to the ideal gas law. A molecule of gasoline, for instance, has some amount of energy trapped in the molecular bonds and this does not change with changing pressure. Same with CO2. If it absorbs IR radiation, that energy is there and not subject to the gas law. However, the amount of time it takes for the molecule to reemit the energy (tiny fraction of a second) makes that discussion irrelevant.

    Yes, the air becomes less dense with altitude. But, as I said before, the molecules are not moving through that altitude change (at least not quickly), so the ideal gas law does not apply. But, the reduced pressure means there is a reduction in the collision rate and more energy will be transported via IR radiation. That is how energy can go down, or in any other direction. If you were to hold a laser pointer, you can point it in any direction and the photons of light (energy) will go in whatever direction you are pointing. Likewise, the CO2 molecule will emit a photon of light in the wavelength of IR and it will go in some random, straight line. Some will go down, some will go up. If that photon of IR light hits something that can absorb it (not all molecules can), it will be absorbed and that absorbing molecule will become momentarily excited. It will then work to get rid of that excess energy, mostly by either collision or emitting another photon. This is how the transport of energy from the surface to space is slowed down. And, this is not transporting energy from a cold object to a warm one. This is easy to prove. Take a piece of ice out of your freezer and look at it. If you can see it, photons of light are leaving the ice (a cold object) and striking the retina in your eye (a hot object). Photons of energy are going from a cold object to a hot one and this is not a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

    Yes, there are some convection patterns made because of the heating. This is due to the difference in temperature. But, it doesn't just go with altitude. It happens as a result of temperature difference in latitude, as well. And, it is complicated by the fact that not everything absorbs visible light equally well. The albedo of ice and snow, for example, is very high. So, those areas covered with ice and snow reflect light instead of absorbing it. The oceans absorb visible light very well due to their depth. So, oceans are big absorbers. But, water vapor absorbs IR very well. But, not all regions of the planet have equal amounts of water vapor in the air.

    As you can see, the total picture gets very complicated, very quickly and is much more complex than the simple picture we give to help people understand the greenhouse effect. This is why I say climate science is the most complex science of all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You are correct that photons of light are passing from the ice cube to my eyes, but the majority of that is not IR. What I am seeing is reflected light from an outside source. Since ice is very cold it will not emit much infrared at all. Infrared is only emited by any substance due to heat. Nor will my eyes heat up when looking at an ice cube. Nor will my eyes warm up if I stare into a pot of water heated up to 80°F even though that water is emitting IR light. Because my eyes have more energy and are also emitting IR light as does all matter. What you have is a question of what is emiting more. Even with radiant energy the laws of thermodynamics still hold. That which is warmer emits more IR, that which is colder emits less. So the flow is still in one direction and if that were the only means of transfer (i.e. no connecting conductive substance) and if there were no outside source two objects radiating IR would eventually come to equilibrium with the colder object warming up and the warmer object cooling down.


    Is this not so?

    ReplyDelete
  5. In fact, the ice cube is emitting IR photons and those photons will add energy to your eye. Yes, your eye is also emitting IR at the same time. The difference between how much you absorb (and generate) and how much you emit is the difference between getting warmer and getting cooler. But, don't forget the aspect of getting warmer or cooler at different rates. When you put a blanket on the bed in the winter, when you wear a coat, when you sit in front of a fireplace and even when you turn the thermostat up you are actually cooling down. The thing you want to control is how fast you cool down. On a summer day when it is 95 degrees you are cooling down because you body is about 98 degrees. It may not feel like it though because you are generating energy faster than it is being emitted. Likewise, when it is 40 degrees you are still cooling down but now it feels chilly. That is because the rate of cooling is greater than the rate you are generating heat. This is the problem we have with global warming. The planet is being warmed continuously by the Sun. Given a stable system, we would reach a point where the amount of energy being reemitted by the planet was the same as what was coming in. But, the system is not stable. We are continuously changing it with our emissions. As a result, we are slowing the cooling process. So, the rate heat is leaving the planet is decreasing, but the rate that it is coming in is remaining the same. That scenario can lead to only two outcomes. Either we cool off, but at a continuously slower rate, or we heat up and at a continuously faster rate. The latter has been verified with an overwhelming amount of data.


    While it is true two objects in thermal contact would eventually reach equilibrium if they are in a closed system, the planet is not a closed system. We have an outside source of energy, namely the Sun.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The blanket analogy is not very apt. The human body, which emits IR experiences most of its heat loss by direct contact with the air. Energy loss by IR is negligable to the point of being ignored completely. This is also the case with the surface of the earth. The dominant modes of heat transfer are conduction, convection, and of course evaporization. When it comes to IR the dominant player is water vapor. Water vapor has a specific heat which is loosely 2.3 times that of CO2. Meaning of course it is able to absorb more energy while generating less heat. While the specific heat of CO2 is not much different from O2. Folks who work in heating and air condition will recognize the fact that water vapor holds a great deal more latent heat than air. The example I will point to is a dry air condition such as the desert. The pattern of heating and cooling is the surface becomes much warmer than humid regions due to the albedo of the surface, the heat absorbing capacity of the surface, and the lack of clouds and water vapor to filter out the sun's energy. But at night the surface cools rapidly as does the air. Nights in a desert get very cold. Contrast this to a humid location. Now both areas will have the same concentration of CO2 as it is well mixed in the atmosphere.


    It would seem to me is CO2 has that much importance then areas such as the Sahara should be seeing increasing night time lows. Would this not be a real place to put the theory to the test?


    But what is actually happening is the Sahara is actually shrinking as are most desert areas. What has been well documented is the world is greening up. As is also well known CO2 is essential to life and plants thrive on increased levels. They grow faster, hold more moisture, require less irrigation, are more resistant to diseases, etc and etc.


    Where as the anartic and artic regions are becoming colder with greater ice coverage, since most glacial melting actually happened prior to 1900, since there has been no global warming is at least 17 years, since most of the land record increase in temperatures has been demonstrated to be due to urban heat island effects and changes in the albedo of the surface due to changes in land usage, and since ocean temperatures by satellite record have actually been going down for the last 8 years it seems to me the evidence is clearly showing the alarmism on CO2 is just dead wrong. You seem to be fighting something that actually makes things better for humans.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The blanket analogy is actually very appropriate and quite accurate. As for the major sources of heat loss you listed, they play almost no role in the planetary heat loss. All of those methods keep the energy within the system. There is no convection or conduction into outer space from within the atmosphere and any heat removed by evaporation is replaced with an equal amount of heat through condensation. The planet loses almost all energy via reflection and IR emissions.


    Your water vapor discussion is not accurate. Water vapor accounts for the majority of the greenhouse effect (CO2 accounts for about 30%), but it does not 'generate' energy. It absorbs IR radiation and then reemits that energy in a random direction, the same as the other greenhouse gases. Latent heat is not a factor in the greenhouse effect (see my comments about evaporation in the first paragraph). Remember, the reason there is water vapor in the air is because something else made the air warm enough to hold it. The water vapor level is highly dependent on temperature, so something else must warm it up before the vapor level can increase.



    And, it is not accurate to say they have the same CO2 levels. Define 'same'. Are they both elevated? Yes. Are they both 400 ppm at the same moment? Probably not. CO2 levels do fluctuate and this is being mapped on a global basis by the Carbon-Observatory 2 satellite.


    I have no idea why you would say the Sahara Desert is shrinking. Desertification is occurring worldwide and effects an estimated 30 million square miles. It has grown over 250,000 square miles since the 1950s. The Gobi Desert has grown over 20,000 square miles in the last five years. The main cause of desertification is deforestation by expanding populations.


    The glacial ice worldwide is retreating at an astonishing, and increasing, rate. Both Antarctica and Greenland are losing hundreds of billions of tons of ice each year to melting. The Arctic sea ice extent and volume have both been getting smaller since at least 1980. This year, the Arctic region had the smallest maximum extent ever recorded.


    CO2 makes plants grow more vigorously. This takes energy away from the crop portion and diverts it to the structural portion. As a result, as CO2 levels go up, the nutritional value goes down. This is already being observed worldwide. Additionally, many crops (wheat and corn, for example) are temperature sensitive and production will go down as temperatures increase. And, not to mention the increased temperatures lead to more weather extremes affecting crops, such as droughts (see California), floods, hail, tornadoes, heat waves, early (fall) and late (spring) freezes, etc.



    Oh, by the way, don't forget the sea level rise that has already occurred and is making the drinking water in many places unpotable by causing salt water incursion into the aquifer.


    These are just a sampling of the effects of global warming and climate change. There are many more. All in all, the tally is not in our favor.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Here is a post I wrote about the sea ice, including links to the National Snow and Ice Data Center:
    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2015/03/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-maximum.html

    Here is a post I wrote about the warming record, including links to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center:
    http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2015/03/february-2015-was-second-warmest-ever.html

    Here is a U.N. report on worldwide desertification.
    http://www.un.org/en/events/desertificationday/background.shtml

    I did not find any reference showing an 11% increase in greenery, but the more important question is where is it turning greener? Much of the tundra is experiencing green growth as the tundra heats up and the permafrost melts. Also, a lot of farmland is being abandoned (especially here in the U.S.) and is returning to forest land.

    Crop yields are increasing mainly because of improvements in farming techniques. However, studies have shown the amount of growth has been reduced due to global warming:
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/31/climate-change-food-supply-un

    Here is an EPA report on the impact of climate change on crop yields:
    http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/agriculture.html

    What is patently obvious is the science showing climate change is overwhelming and is conclusive. The only thing now is to determine more details.

    Yes, the science really is settled.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Good point. Also, nothing in science is ever proven to be true. There is always some degree of uncertainty.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I love the way you deniers reject science and then lie to the public. It is absolutely false so say nothing in science is ever proven to be true. I can prove, with absolute certainty, that the Sun is not in my back yard. There is no uncertainty in that statement and there is no uncertainty in the statement that manmade emissions are changing the climate.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Are you really a science professor? A good science professor would never say someone rejects science simply because they take a different point of view than their own.

    If you think science proves anything to be true, then I suggest you should watch this course:

    http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/science-wars-what-scientists-know-and-how-they-know-it.html


    And note that the prof teaching the course supports your side of the climate debate. He says however, that claims to knowing anything in climate science are a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Once again, you demonstrate how you reject science and want to mislead other people. Science is not an opinion. You don't 'believe' in gravity and you don't 'believe' in anthropogenic climate change. You follow the science and the science is absolutely settled. The only possible way to come to any other conclusion is to reject any evidence that doesn't fit your preconceived conclusion. The scientific method is very clear on this - you have to go where the science leads you. As for knowing 'anything' in climate science, you, yet again, prove you reject science. We know a tremendous amount and are learning more every day. Is there more to learn? Absolutely. But, don't come to me and say "claims to knowing anything in climate science are a mistake." That is an outright lie. Of course, that is the specialty of climate change deniers.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Science conclusions are merely the opinions of the scientists that they formulates based on their interpretation of the observations. This is what the "science wars" in the 1990s was all about.
    You really need to take the course I mention, especially the part about idols of the mind discussed by Bacon.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Apparently you need to take the course again. Science is not "the opinions of the scientists." Once again, you don't 'believe' in science and any scientific claim must be validated by others. It is not up to one scientist to make a claim and have everyone march in step without questioning it. Really, did you even pay attention in that class? Since I already know you only see what you want to see and reject anything else, I'm pretty sure you didn't really listen much.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Professor Goldman spoke with me on the phone and he agreed that the claims made by DAGW activists to "know" what is happening are irrational, philosophically. I wrote about this in the press, if you do a search. Here is one: http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/tomball/opinion/tom-harris-taming-the-climate-debate/article_3b75159e-7d0b-11e4-82bf-9388a6927b3b.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. How ludicrous! Irrational? You are traveling the road from ridiculous to just plain absurd. Denier speak at work. Where's the science to support your claims?

    ReplyDelete
  17. take the course and learn about Bacon's idols of the mind. You seem to have fallen victim to several.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Why in the world would you think I am not familiar with Bacon's idols of the mind? By the way, assuming something about me without any knowledge of the fact would would fall under idols of the cave.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bubby the energy trapped by CO₂ comes primarily from the sun.

    CO₂ is not a source of energy, in and of itself.

    If you don't understand the basics of the topic you're attempting to discuss, why would you have such a strong opinion about it?

    "During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth's surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth's surface cools, releasing the heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That's what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 59 degrees Fahrenheit, on average."

    climatekids.nasa.gov/review/greenhouse-effect

    ReplyDelete
  20. Actually Christopher, yours is the false argument. The above poster has made the better point, which you will not agree with despite its logical foundation. Simply put, ARGO does not have the coverage nor depth resolution to make any sort of claim on a warming or cooling ocean, it has registered a slight warming which is akin to .5C over 100 years and there's absolutely know way to verify this claim as the target is in constant motion. As well, the land based historical record lacks coverage(as is explained in all Hadcrut iterations) as well the raw data prior 1990 was lost in a move. So no luck there, we cannot verify the voracity if the adjustments because the raw does not exist and we haven't even begin to discuss issues surrounding instrumentation. Now we look at satellite data which experiences passing coverage and a rather large error margin compared to surface devices. Now let's attempt to predict the see ice extent in both the Arctic and Antarctica, its a shame we have no instruments to accomplish this prediction, however we do have physics, and maths which also come with a large degree of fallibility. Now what are we left with? The forcing of Co2? If its the primary driver of temp as you have said several times...where is the warming? Do you think you might locate it with ARGO...what was the resolution again? Also you find if you revisit the maths on resonant feedbacks you will find a shocker there I'm sure. As I said months ago, your math is wrong. A paper will be released on the matter so. It will be peer reviewed and you will have your chance to argue against it. One more thing, the CAGW argument hinges on catastrophic warming, without warming...isn't the negative proven? Logic. I'll leave you to the crickets I hear following in the wake of your 15 minutes of fame.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Its so silly, if the warming do to Co2 forcing negated damaging cooling, to give us a stable cycle, just hypothically speaking... Where is the catastrophy? Logic

    ReplyDelete
  22. Look it up. Who funded the Club of Romes first publication, follow the money. Now we are in an era where the IPCC will be part of a global "governing body" and hapless shills like yourself who are too foolish to see political mechanisms have helped to push that agenda. Only Canada and the Australia are on the outside at this point. Now a global governing body has a financial base. Policy and enforcement to follow. Those of us who well understand the politics have known this all along. You might try tuning into Alex Jones now and again.

    ReplyDelete
  23. We all get the argument, the earth aught to be cooling but is isn't. Is that right? Co2 forcing is haulting a natural cooling cycle...not that that assertion follows the trend line, but OK. So here's the point, take it or leave it: if the earth is supposed to cool but isn't, and we have "registered a .2C increase over the last 30 ish years which does follow the trend line over the last couple hundred years...where is the catastrophy? Why should anyone care about a non issue? Please for the love of god tell me why?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Is that truly a demonstration of your logic? And, you were willing to put it into print? Answer one question, (it's rhetorical), why can't there be MORE warming than the amount of cooling? In other words, why can't we have the situation where the amount of natural cooling is LESS than the amount of warming due to manmade greenhouse gases? In case you haven't figured it out, that is exactly what is happening. There is more warming than the natural cooling - hence, a warming planet. Logic.

    ReplyDelete
  25. OMG! Another Club of Rome person. Did you ever think to spend as much time on reality as you do conspiracy plots?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Actually, the temperature rise has been .8 C and, yes, it does follow the trend line (another denier falsehood shot down). Why should we care? Ask the people in California that are suffering from the drought due to climate change. Ask the 2500 (and counting) dead people in India that are being hammered by a heat wave due to climate change. Ask the people in the Philippines that are being hit with one super-typhoon after another due to climate change. Ask the one-in-six species that is going extinct due to climate change. Ask the poor people all over the world that are suffering due to climate change. Better yet, why not ask you? Check your food bill, your insurance bill, your utility bill - just for starters. You really don't mind your cost of living is going up while your standard of living is going down? To clue you in - I do and so do a lot of other people.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Are you drunk when you type these?

    Your argument is similar to saying we can't use any astronomical data before Hubble because Hubble was so much better. And, yes, you will find if you revisit the data there is an overwhelming amount of evidence the planet has experienced about .8 C of warming over the last few decades. I am waiting for a peer-reviewed paper that shows there is no global warming or climate change. Logic. And, do you really think this is about me? What about the 97% of all climate scientists that are convince manmade climate change is real? Again, logic.

    ReplyDelete
  28. And? The warming we have "observed" does not deviate from the long term trend line. Our observations may fault in either direction. I make no assumption here, do you? You're shouting to anyone who will listen, " help yourselves! We are in peril do to Co2 forcing!" But no peril has been observed. So what about your argument is at all important? Logic

    ReplyDelete
  29. Really? No peril? I will point out the 2500 dead in India (not to mention those that have suffered but are still alive) due to a heat wave caused by manmade global warming. Convince them there is no peril.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Wow, you like to shoot for the moon. First, I've been to India, experienced 50C and higher temps, I must have had a dozen cold showers a day, watched a lot of cricket. India has a history of heat waves...a looooong history of heat waves. Please compare these heat waves with the historical record. How stupid is your comment, to drum up sympathy for your pathetic argument. I'm very sorry for those who have lost their lives, but it does not prove your point in the slightest, because as you enjoy pointing out, whether is not climate and regional anomalies do not constitute a trend line. You pleasure yourself with the notion that all whether related deaths are caused by an effect which has not been observed to be dangerous to life. But let's play with this stupid idea, but flip it over: let's say that the slight warming caused by Co2 forcing has slightly decreased the probability that we are headed into another full scale ice age? How many would die then? We have just resolved that science does not have the instrumentation in play to make a concrete claim to climate. So why can't the cooling argument work as well as your foolish claims? Again we have to employ logic.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Please convince me that a cold planet is safer than a hotter planet. That should be fun

    ReplyDelete
  32. Well, you've already rejected science, so that would take away all of my proof. But, that isn't the question, is it? The question is, should we be so engaged in destroying our environment and lowering the standard of living for billions of people, all for the sake of a few billionaires?

    ReplyDelete
  33. http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2015/05/1100-dead-prove-tom-harris-is-wrong.html


    Other than that, I read your comment and I thought, WTF????


    Did you honestly think you were going to 'chop my legs off' with statements like this? Please try to stick to the world of the rational.

    ReplyDelete
  34. No, Christopher you have reject both the science and logic. You are the denier my friend. And your question is not the correct one. A better question is, should we abondon real environmentalism for this witch hunt, spend trillions on policy that solves no problem, or should we be sensible in our policy and spending?That money could actually do some good if it isn't in the hands of fools.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Your legs are long since chopped, there is no catastrophy, so you have been bleating for nothing. Please stop. As for rational, I'm not the one who needs to wake up. All your assertions have fallen, the last of these is to come in the form of a peer reviewed paper on the fundamental math. You may want to revisit it yourself to save yourself some embarrassment. Soon you will be forced to content with the notion that you were just a useful tool, and those elites you were so afraid of exist on both sides of the political spectrum. Or did you think all billionaires were Conservative? Anything that happens policy wise to fight Co2 forcing is just a sham. I don't see you fighting as hard as you did months ago, I suspect you know what I'm talking about. Don't be so proud Christopher, you've been duped.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yes, thank you. I read that artical. It will be good policy for heads of state to petition the UN for relief capital. Now it seems they will have a large fund to tap into. And for those who are not aware...nations routinely aid each other during crisis. A centralized governing body need not exist for this purpose. Of course it doesn't exist for that purpose exactly, does it? Still, please do a historical comparison before you write stupid things. You just make yourself look a mess. Lol.

    ReplyDelete
  37. You have entered into the realm of being a troll. If you have something valuable to add to the conversation, I'll be glad to hear it. But, nonsense about the Club of Rome or any other conspiracy theory based on the rejection of science, data, and reality has no place here.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Nice, hide behind the conspiracy flyer. Dismiss everything else, why not? I've watched you bully commenter after commenter for months. When you run into an argument you can't win, you find a way to excuse yourself. How many times have you used a climate anomaly to reinforce your inflated Co2 forcing claim? You know very well these arguments are void as soon as you spit them out. But spit them out you will. I want everyone who visits your site to know your methods. Over the last several months I've gathered enough wind to realize how rediculous this fear campaign is, and I'm not the only one. It says something that Anthony Watts is the number one blog on this topic. You are a very small, irrelevant voice, antiquated silly voice. And you are beyond reason or real science. Good luck with that ;)

    ReplyDelete
  39. I'm sorry that .8C would be the 100 year average increase, not over the last 30 years as you suggest. Basic stuff. And as for temperature anomolies and natural disasters, I'm not sure why you're playing that tired card again? Maybe you like spewing nonsense? "Natural...arrow pointing at that word...disasters?" Please tell me time when we did not have these? As for California, there is a warm blob off the west coast which has been persistent and it has been observed many times before through the record. Nothing new there and notice it does not create a run away warming effect globally, again, natural variability. We all know this. But you would use it to make your point. Tisk, tisk. And if you're looking for a reason prices are inflating here in North America, you need only look as far as the federal reserve. Inflation is baked into your currency, because yours and mine are debt based economies, without debt there can be no creation of money. Each dollar created in America costs the american public and so it is not statistically possible to eradicate debt. Ever. Unless the Fed is eradicated. Check your history books. Also you might want to venture into economics before making false attributions. Aren't you even concerned at how wrong you are about nearly everything?

    ReplyDelete