The Big Question: Is the push for a climate change bill dead? - The Hill's Congress Blog
[Lots of people say "yes" here]Glacial goose bumps! Arctic ice at 10-year high
Richard S. Lindzen, atmospheric physicist and professor at MIT, said:
It is difficult to see what, other than cupidity, could lead to any gathering momentum. In point of fact, nothing proposed would have any discernible impact on climate regardless of one's views on climate science. Rather, the legislation would simply be another mix of payoffs and taxes. Public concern over climate is sinking. The science is increasingly acknowledged as being far from certain and even dubious. Scandals, while being denied, are clearly real. Claims of certainty are being endorsed by professional societies with no expertise (presumably under pressure from the environmental enthusiasts in the White House) while many actual scientists are acknowledging severe problems. The situation is quite a mess, and, I suspect that many politicians sense this. Supporting such legislation gets ever riskier. Atop all this, the developing world is more clearly and vocally identifying carbon control with attempts to stifle desperately needed development -- which is to say that the issue is developing a patina of profound immorality.
Amid proof of junk science, Obama pushes carbon taxesLieberman on climate change, political and otherwise: 'I'm just being me' | The Connecticut Mirror
With a close Republican ally and a liberal Democrat who campaigned for his defeat in 2006, independent Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman expects to introduce revised climate-change legislation next week.
"My guess is we don't take it up in the Senate until sometime in June, but I think we have a real shot at it," Lieberman said. "To me, it will be one of the most significant things I ever have done."
...
At Goodwin College, Lieberman said the effects of climate change are readily apparent, in ways that are subtle and dramatic.
"When I started on this long ago the worst consequences of climate change were not visible to the eye," he said. "Today if you look at satellite pictures of polar ice caps, 25 years ago and today, it is startling how much smaller they are."
Posts
15 comments:
Arctic ice is not at "a 10-yr high." Extent this year is high. Arctic sea ice volume is not.
Both fluctuate yearly, of course. It's the long-term trend that matters.
Please show me 10 years of detailed ice thickness data that you're using to calculate Arctic sea ice volume.
Thanks,
Tom
Kwok, R., G. F. Cunningham, M. Wensnahan, I. Rigor, H. J. Zwally, and D. Yi (2009), Thinning and volume loss of the Arctic Ocean sea ice cover: 2003–2008, J. Geophys. Res., 114, C07005, doi:10.1029/2009JC005312.
See also the NSIDC's Julienne Stroeve at:
http://is.gd/be9Mf
David, I believe Tom asked you for 10 years of detailed ice surveys. What you provided is based on ICESat data. The ICESat satellite was not available until February of 2004, before that there was no detailed ice thickness measurements. In other words, we cannot know if the sea ice extent in 1979 was thicker, thinner or the same as today. This is part of the problem with the alarmist argument, many of the data sets you are using (and abusing) do not have sufficient history to be useful. Growing sea ice is not declining sea ice no matter what the thickness. Do a Google image search of the USS Skate on March 17th 1957 and you will find a photo of a US Navy sub surfaced at the North Pole with only the occassional ice berg visible. That is March (known in this hemisphere as "winter")1957, at the North Pole, very little ice, thick or thin. FYI, another peer reviewed paper came out this past week showing temperatures 2-4C warmer during the MWP and the RWP. No "tipping point" was reached and the oceans did not turn to acid. This is not an argument you can win in the long term, Gaia is not cooperating with your precious theory.
> before that there was no
> detailed ice thickness
> measurements.
In other words, providing 10-yrs worth of data is impossible, as it doesn't exist.
Yet, what data does exist (5 yrs) shows that ice volume is decreasing. Yet you dismiss this.
Anecdotes of submarine photographs are not data.
Calling people names like "alarmist" is useless. Do you have data that ice volume is increasing, or don't you?
This concern about ice growing/shrinkikng just doesn't seem very relevent. Recall that we are still (by all acounts) living in an interglacial period.
Would you expect ice to be growing/thickening everywhere?
> This concern about ice
> growing/shrinkikng just doesn't
> seem very relevent. Recall
> that we are still (by all
> accounts) living
> in an interglacial period.
This interglacial period (what scientists call the Holocene) is about 11Kyrs long.
In fact, most scientists think that, barring anthropogenic factors, we should just about now be entering the end of the Holocene and into a new Ice age -- as the LIA indicated). Instead, this last century, and this last decade in particular, has seen very high temps, with the past 12 months the highest of all
(See http://is.gd/brBLM)
The last 12 months have been the highest on record? I can't imagine where you get that from. It's seemed pretty darn cold to me this year with record snowfalls just about everywhere.
I hope you haven't gotten that information from the NASA temperature sets (the ones where they cut down the number of reading stations from 6000 to 1500. Bolivia is shown now being cherry red even though there is no temperature readings within 200 kilometres.)
Bogusnews said...
> The last 12 months have been
> the highest on record? I can't
> imagine where you get that from.
> It's seemed pretty darn cold to me > this year with record snowfalls
> just about everywhere.
Has it occurred to you that perhaps your backyard is not representative of the rest of the world?
Or that the US only comprises 2% of the globe's land mass?
(Data is from NASA GISS:
http://is.gd/brQY2)
> I hope you haven't gotten that
> information from the NASA
> temperature sets (the ones where
> they cut down the number
> of reading stations from
> 6000 to 1500.
Of course, the real question is how differences in data collection affect their conclusions.
Do you know? Have you read their papers?
Do you think NASA scientists are too stupid to take this into consideration, but you are so brilliant as to trump all of the professionals? Have you inquired of them?
Let us know. (The papers are readily available on their Web site.)
Perhaps, also, you will, like them, have the stones to sign your real name to your work.
Even if the ice cap is melting, it doesn't matter. Sea levels won't rise one bit if it all melts. It is floating and to melt will not raise anything. This is science learned 2000 years ago and taught by Archimedes Principle. Remember? Now you know!
Oooh, the Holocene. You are aware that the earth's average temp has been higher than even sacred 1998 several times during this epoch, no? And you may have heard of the 'Little Ice Age' from which we are arguably still rebounding from? Perhaps exercise some positive feedback of your own and stop wanting so hard to believe the as yet completely unprovable and unobservable AGW crap and start worrying about something we could actually affect. Arrogance and wishing it to be so will not make it so.
he last decade has not shown significant warming, but actually a cooling trend, and yes you're an obvious 'alarmist'. Cherry pick and twist-interpret anything as much as you want. Fact reamins you GAIA- worshiping freaks don't care about the not-very-well-veiled power grab attempt that for which all this BS is being proffered. Do you not see the quick erosion of freedoms that all the other liberal psychopolicies being pursued is causing? Don't youcare? Lemming.
> Sea levels won't rise one bit
> if it all melts
Wrong. The albedo change from the lack of ice will lead to more warming, which raises sea level.
The Ice will never be right...it will always be too thin, too little, too sparse, to crunchy or something. When your livihood depends on something being wrong in the Arctic, it will never be right. It's hard to tell if they are crazy or just greedy. They keep making expeditions and having to be rescued with extremities about to fall off from the cold. That's the crazy part, because they go with the intention, as those women, of swimming in the Arctic.
People don't care about the Arctic and most don't realize (lieberman) that that major melting goes on in the summer. Adding 8GT of CO2 to resident 40,000GT is like spitting in the ocean.
While so-called scientists talk in circles (now cold is caused by warming) people recogize the varied agendas including the biggie of control over the "means of production." Nature will make total fools out of them while they pretend to know what's going on. The e-mails proved as much.
Post a Comment