The Great Arctic Thaw

Arctic Melt Unnerves the Experts

The Arctic ice cap shrank so much this summer that waves briefly lapped along two long-imagined Arctic shipping routes, the Northwest Passage over Canada and the Northern Sea Route over Russia.

Over all, the floating ice dwindled to an extent unparalleled in a century or more, by several estimates.

Now the six-month dark season has returned to the North Pole. In the deepening chill, new ice is already spreading over vast stretches of the Arctic Ocean. Astonished by the summer�??s changes, scientists are studying the forces that exposed one million square miles of open water �?? six Californias �?? beyond the average since satellites started measurements in 1979.

At a recent gathering of sea-ice experts at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks, Hajo Eicken, a geophysicist, summarized it this way: �??Our stock in trade seems to be going away.�??

Scientists are also unnerved by the summer�??s implications for the future, and their ability to predict it.

Complicating the picture, the striking Arctic change was as much a result of ice moving as melting, many say. A new study, led by Son Nghiem at NASA�??s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and appearing this week in Geophysical Research Letters, used satellites and buoys to show that winds since 2000 had pushed huge amounts of thick old ice out of the Arctic basin past Greenland. The thin floes that formed on the resulting open water melted quicker or could be shuffled together by winds and similarly expelled, the authors said.

The pace of change has far exceeded what had been estimated by almost all the simulations used to envision how the Arctic will respond to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases linked to global warming. But that disconnect can cut two ways. Are the models overly conservative? Or are they missing natural influences that can cause wide swings in ice and temperature, thereby dwarfing the slow background warming?

The world is paying more attention than ever.

Russia, Canada and Denmark, prompted in part by years of warming and the ice retreat this year, ratcheted up rhetoric and actions aimed at securing sea routes and seabed resources.

Proponents of cuts in greenhouse gases cited the meltdown as proof that human activities are propelling a slide toward climate calamity.

Arctic experts say things are not that simple. More than a dozen experts said in interviews that the extreme summer ice retreat had revealed at least as much about what remains unknown in the Arctic as what is clear. Still, many of those scientists said they were becoming convinced that the system is heading toward a new, more watery state, and that human-caused global warming is playing a significant role.

For one thing, experts are having trouble finding any records from Russia, Alaska or elsewhere pointing to such a widespread Arctic ice retreat in recent times, adding credence to the idea that humans may have tipped the balance. Many scientists say the last substantial warming in the region, peaking in the 1930s, mainly affected areas near Greenland and Scandinavia.

Some scientists who have long doubted that a human influence could be clearly discerned in the Arctic�??s changing climate now agree that the trend is hard to ascribe to anything else.

�??We used to argue that a lot of the variability up to the late 1990s was induced by changes in the winds, natural changes not obviously related to global warming,�?? said John Michael Wallace, a scientist at the University of Washington. �??But changes in the last few years make you have to question that. I�??m much more open to the idea that we might have passed a point where it�??s becoming essentially irreversible.�??

Experts say the ice retreat is likely to be even bigger next summer because this winter�??s freeze is starting from such a huge ice deficit. At least one researcher, Wieslaw Maslowski of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., projects a blue Arctic Ocean in summers by 2013.

In essence, Arctic waters may be behaving more like those around Antarctica, where a broad fringe of sea ice builds each austral winter and nearly disappears in the summer. (Reflecting the different geography and dynamics at the two poles, there has been a slight increase in sea-ice area around Antarctica in recent decades.)

While open Arctic waters could be a boon for shipping, fishing and oil exploration, an annual seesawing between ice and no ice could be a particularly harsh jolt to polar bears.

Many Arctic researchers warned that it was still far too soon to start sending container ships over the top of the world. �??Natural variations could turn around and counteract the greenhouse-gas-forced change, perhaps stabilizing the ice for a bit,�?? said Marika Holland, of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

But, she added, that will not last. �??Eventually the natural variations would again reinforce the human-driven change, perhaps leading to even more rapid retreat,�?? Dr. Holland said. �??So I wouldn�??t sign any shipping contracts for the next 5 to 10 years, but maybe the next 20 to 30.�??

While experts debate details, many agree that the vanishing act of the sea ice this year was probably caused by superimposed forces including heat-trapping clouds and water vapor in the air, as well as the ocean-heating influence of unusually sunny skies in June and July. Other important factors were warm winds flowing from Siberia around a high-pressure system parked over the ocean. The winds not only would have melted thin ice but also pushed floes offshore where currents and winds could push them out of the Arctic Ocean.

But another factor was probably involved, one with roots going back to about 1989. At that time, a periodic flip in winds and pressure patterns over the Arctic Ocean, called the Arctic Oscillation, settled into a phase that tended to stop ice from drifting in a gyre for years, so it could thicken, and instead carried it out to the North Atlantic.

The new NASA study of expelled old ice builds on previous measurements showing that the proportion of thick, durable floes that were at least 10 years old dropped to 2 percent this spring from 80 percent in the spring of 1987, said Ignatius G. Rigor, an ice expert at the University of Washington and an author of the new NASA-led study.

Without the thick ice, which can endure months of nonstop summer sunshine, more dark open water and thin ice absorbed solar energy, adding to melting and delaying the winter freeze.

The thinner fresh-formed ice was also more vulnerable to melting from heat held near the ocean surface by clouds and water vapor. This may be where the rising influence of humans on the global climate system could be exerting the biggest regional influence, said Jennifer A. Francis of Rutgers University.

Other Arctic experts, including Dr. Maslowski in Monterey and Igor V. Polyakov at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, also see a role in rising flows of warm water entering the Arctic Ocean through the Bering Strait between Alaska and Russia, and in deep currents running north from the Atlantic Ocean near Scandinavia.

A host of Arctic scientists say it is too soon to know if the global greenhouse effect has already tipped the system to a condition in which sea ice in summers will be routinely limited to a few clotted passageways in northern Canada.

But at the university in Fairbanks �?? where signs of northern warming include sinkholes from thawing permafrost around its Arctic research center �?? Dr. Eicken and other experts are having a hard time conceiving a situation that could reverse the trends.

�??The Arctic may have another ace up her sleeve to help the ice grow back,�?? Dr. Eicken said. �??But from all we can tell right now, the means for that are quite limited.�??

The debate isn’t about whether there is a warming effect currently – the debate is around whether, and if so to what extent, the warming is caused by human activity.

[i]
Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of

peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have
published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global
warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a
natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen
global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our
Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance.
“This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that
a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global
temperature increases since 1850,” said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow
Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise

importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder
with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that
human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many
people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies
are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and

Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media
attention. “Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as
global warming skeptics,” said Avery, “but the evidence in their studies is
there for all to see.”

The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer,

the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500
Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The
researchers’ specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites,
lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and
astrophysics.

"We've had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a

moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have
never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. “On the
other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle
averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million
years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the
trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted.”

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm

periods were good for people," says Avery. “It was the harsh, unstable Dark
Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost,
widespread famine and plagues of disease.” “There may have been a consensus
of guesses among climate model-builders,” says Singer. “However, the models
only reflect the warming, not its cause.” He noted that about 70 percent of
the earth’s post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not
caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals
only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year

record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and
thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the
Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The
physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and
pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice
cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been
analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures
during the Medieval Warming Period on California’s Whitewing Mountain must
have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S.
Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that
grew above today’s tree line.

Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the

telescope that the earth’s climate variations were linked to the sunspot
cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated
that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of
the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying
small variations in the intensity of the sun.

Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional

peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will
publish additional researchers’ names and studies. They also noted that
their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without
any corporate contributions.

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from

Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551
172/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6773465-0779318?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189603742&sr=1
-1

For more information, please contact Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute

Senior Fellow and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500
Years, at 540-337-6354: Email: cgfi@hughes.net[/i]

No, that is irrelevant- the real issue is how and if we can positively (re)affect the climate.

Also, the sunspot cycle myth has been already debunked. (yawn)

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
“the debate isn’t about whether there is a warming effect currently – the debate is around whether, and if so to what extent, the warming is caused by human activity.”

No, that is irrelevant- the real issue is how and if we can positively (re)affect the climate.

Also, the sunspot cycle myth has been already debunked. (yawn)[/quote]

Post the debunking please. The more I read the more it seems all planets in our solar system are heating up and the percentage of Earths heating attributed to this keeps increasing.

I know exactly what the argument is.

That being said, I still believe that it’s ignorant and delusional to think that humans have NO effect on it.

It is ridiculous.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I know exactly what the argument is.

That being said, I still believe that it’s ignorant and delusional to think that humans have NO effect on it.

It is ridiculous.[/quote]

It is also ridiculous to think we can make drastic cuts to our carbon emissions without massive lifestyle changes.

And drastic cuts are required if we are responsible for warming.

It was a german article, zap, about two months old.
Also, I rarely post sources JTF-style as I see no use for it. You can post a youtube video of Bush’s famous phrases and yet people rant: it’s just he held so many speeches, he’s caught unprepared, that’s totally normal I speak like that all the time, he’s still a genius … WITH A STRAIGHT FACE.

so I couldn’t care less to “enlighten” creationist whackos and climate- comspiracy freakos.

P.S. Achtung! Es folgt der Artikel! Schnell!

http://www.spiegel.de/dertag/pda/avantgo/artikel/0,1958,498854,00.html

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I know exactly what the argument is.

That being said, I still believe that it’s ignorant and delusional to think that humans have NO effect on it.

It is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to think we can make drastic cuts to our carbon emissions without massive lifestyle changes.

And drastic cuts are required if we are responsible for warming.[/quote]

�??What’s the use of a fine house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?�?? - Thoreau

I hate to say it… but sacrifice might be in the cards. I know that’s a four letter word in America, but… what can you do.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I know exactly what the argument is.

That being said, I still believe that it’s ignorant and delusional to think that humans have NO effect on it.

It is ridiculous.

It is also ridiculous to think we can make drastic cuts to our carbon emissions without massive lifestyle changes.

And drastic cuts are required if we are responsible for warming.

�??What’s the use of a fine house if you haven’t got a tolerable planet to put it on?�?? - Thoreau

I hate to say it… but sacrifice might be in the cards. I know that’s a four letter word in America, but… what can you do.[/quote]

The level of sacrifice is massive. I am not talking about smaller cars. I am tallking about no cars, no gas, no diesel, no coal etc.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

No, that is irrelevant- the real issue is how and if we can positively (re)affect the climate.[/quote]

(re)Affecting the climate is largely irrelevant as well. Undoing even the last decade of emissions would require an unimaginable and unprecedented international shift in power generation, agriculture, and transportation. Even if the technology existed, which it doesn’t, the shear logistics aren’t feasible.

Think about it. ~30 billion tons of CO2 emissions annually. Annual worldwide production of polyethylene plastic is 60 million tons. Annual ‘production’ of sulfuric acid (the most produced chemical) is 165 million tons. WTF would we do with 30 billion tons of anything annually? Even at that, worldwide annual carbon fixation by photosynthesis is estimated to be 200 billion tons. We can’t possibly compete.

Even if we, magically, cut emissions worldwide 50% and could create a 10% deficit, we’d still be back to where we started in only a couple of years. The only option would be to stop growing. And since we’re doing things like spending millions to fight a disease that is voluntarily contracted I don’t think that’s going to happen any time soon.

I hate cold weather. Where’s leaded gas when you need it…Sheesh.

Article by Tom Harris and Ian Clark, two environmentalists from Canada…must be part of the vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Another voice / Climate change
�??Warming�?? alarmists must be held to higher standard
By Tom Harris and Ian Clark

With the intense climate rhetoric of this week�??s U.N. Secretary- General Ban Ki-moon�??s high-level event in New York, the Clinton Global Initiative and President Bush�??s leaders summit, it is time to start asking some fundamental questions of those who would radically restructure our economy in the hope of �??stopping global warming.�?? Here is a sample:

  1. What is your climate science-related background?

Most of those grabbing the spotlight have little or no post-secondary training in science or technology, let alone climate change. What do climate campaigners like Leonardo DiCaprio, Ted Turner and Sen. Barbara Boxer know about climate science?

Actors, business people and politicians untrained in the field are as entitled as anyone to express their opinions about climate, but we need to take what they say with a rather large grain of salt.

  1. How do you know the �??vast majority of scientists�?? agrees with your view?

Despite the confident proclamations of Al Gore, the only place a climate change science consensus exists is in the collective voice of governments and so-called �??science authorities.�??

But this is not real science. Among qualified researchers, there is an intense debate raging about the causes of the past century�??s modest warming. Politicians have nevertheless jumped on the climate catastrophe bandwagon.

  1. If we delayed carbon dioxide reduction decisions by a couple of years to allow a closer examination of the science, what would be the impact on climate?

Essentially none. Even its supporters admit that complete compliance with Kyoto by all nations held to limits would result in less than a 0.1-degree Centigrade difference to global climate a half century from now.

  1. How closely has climate tracked carbon dioxide levels in the past?

Some 440 million years ago, when carbon dioxide levels are estimated to have been more than 10 times today�??s, our planet was in the depths of the coldest period in the last half billion years. At other times, high levels coincided with warm periods. There is no meaningful correlation with temperature in the geological record.

Gore notes that over the past half million years, the Antarctic ice core records show a remarkable link between temperature and carbon dioxide. What he neglects to mention is that these records consistently show that temperature rises some 800 years before carbon dioxide rises, not after it.

Considering what�??s at stake �?? either the end of civilization, if you believe extremists, or a waste of hundreds of billions of dollars in one of the biggest science news scandals of all time �?? society must start to hold �??warmers�?? to a far higher standard. Asking the right questions would be a good start.

Tom Harris is an Ottawa-based engineer and executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. Ian Clark, a science adviser to NRSP, is a professor of earth sciences at the University of Ottawa.

It is so clear that no one knows what is happening and even if the alarmists are right we cannot do anything about it.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
It is so clear that no one knows what is happening and even if the alarmists are right we cannot do anything about it.

[/quote]

Nothing we can do anything about it? 45 years ago a president challenged us to get to the moon and it happened. If someone was bold enough to challenge us to find a more efficient, cleaner energy source for the sake of the future of our planet, do you really think we couldn’t achieve it?

[quote]BabyBuster wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is so clear that no one knows what is happening and even if the alarmists are right we cannot do anything about it.

Nothing we can do anything about it? 45 years ago a president challenged us to get to the moon and it happened. If someone was bold enough to challenge us to find a more efficient, cleaner energy source for the sake of the future of our planet, do you really think we couldn’t achieve it?[/quote]

Yes. There is nothing we can do about it unless we give up burning coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel, etc. And that is not going to happen.

We have plenty of cleaner energy sources, unfortunately most have a built in scarcity and are very expensive.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
BabyBuster wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is so clear that no one knows what is happening and even if the alarmists are right we cannot do anything about it.

Nothing we can do anything about it? 45 years ago a president challenged us to get to the moon and it happened. If someone was bold enough to challenge us to find a more efficient, cleaner energy source for the sake of the future of our planet, do you really think we couldn’t achieve it?

Yes. There is nothing we can do about it unless we give up burning coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel, etc. And that is not going to happen.

We have plenty of cleaner energy sources, unfortunately most have a built in scarcity and are very expensive.[/quote]

How do you know about this, Zap? The moon landing comparison is spot-on. Since our resources have a limit, it’s not really a question if we have to change our consuming habits and means of production, it’s only a matter of time.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
BabyBuster wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
It is so clear that no one knows what is happening and even if the alarmists are right we cannot do anything about it.

Nothing we can do anything about it? 45 years ago a president challenged us to get to the moon and it happened. If someone was bold enough to challenge us to find a more efficient, cleaner energy source for the sake of the future of our planet, do you really think we couldn’t achieve it?

Yes. There is nothing we can do about it unless we give up burning coal, natural gas, gasoline, diesel, etc. And that is not going to happen.

We have plenty of cleaner energy sources, unfortunately most have a built in scarcity and are very expensive.

How do you know about this, Zap? The moon landing comparison is spot-on. Since our resources have a limit, it’s not really a question if we have to change our consuming habits and means of production, it’s only a matter of time.
[/quote]

How do I know this? It is as plain as the nose on my face.

We will not change our oil consumption until we run out. It is human nature.

Actually we will change our oil consumption when something cheaper comes about.

There are 2 reasons for this. First people prefer to save money, at least generally they do. Second price is actually related to the energy to produce something, which is why the production of more expensive hybrids actually has been shown to result in more total energy used over its lifespan then a Hummer. (Part of the problem being such short battery life.)

The whole idea of climate change, or global warming, has become so politicized that it is in fact hard to find the truth about the matter.

If Kyoto was so great, why was America actually more successful not being part of it then most of the countries that were? (i.e. Total failure.)

The world is increasing its energy usage every year. Conservation and efficiency improvements help, but cover, at most, half of the increase each year. But this increase is part of the human race developing, and the only way to stop it is to halt human development.

We could have way less CO2 in the atmosphere then we do, but the wonderful environmentalists went to bat to save us from new-que-ler power. Now suddenly they are for it.

I currently use compact fluorescent lights. They have paid for themselves already, meaning there couldn’t be any more then $15 worth of energy in the package(s) I have bought, and since I have saved at least that much on my end, I have obviously saved energy. More importantly my monthly bill is lower.

Now back to global warming, again (as I keep repeating myself,) we must first prove that there is global warming, or climate change, (winter word for global warming) going on.

Next we need to prove that Humans are the cause. Plus we need to figure out what percentage of it we are causing.

Then we need to find out if it is good or bad.

All 3 questions are far from being answered. Last I knew, the temperature change was still not statistically significant since accurate temperature measurements have occurred.

Also it needs to be noted that the little ice age ended in the mid 1800’s, meaning we are still recovering from it.

The time we are living is called interglacial. Between glaciers. How do we know that if we were not here that we would not be headed to a world without ice caps? Its happened before.

Then the repeated line about Mars getting warmer also, and losing it’s ice caps, tells us that maybe something is going on with the Sun.

But we are increasing CO2 emissions, and they are greenhouse gases. (Which is actually not working in any way like a greenhouse, but I digress.) They can contribute to a warmer Earth. And using the science of the environmentalists, even if we went to extremes to reduce our CO2 output, the effects wouldn’t even be noticeable.

The political idea is to have rich countries pay the poor countries in some sort of shell game that does nothing to actually reduce CO2 production, but is actually back door way to turn the world into a global socialist experiment. (Hey, its worked so well in the past.)

One thing that seems to escape understanding is that only ice on land melting can affect ocean levels. The ice already in the oceans will not have any effect. But for every inch of land lost to higher water, we gain an inch in uncovered land.

We can’t predict weather very well a few days out, but know exactly how climate change works. I don’t think so, and yes they are related sciences.

Many people have learned about the multi year cycles of El-Nino, and La-Nina, but do not know of the 20 year cycles, 50 year cycles, 100 year cycles, and 500 - 1000 year cycles. (My numbers may be off here.) They are still struggling to figure out how El-Nino works.

And for the question is global warming good or bad, realize the growing season has increased, and the Earth has actually gotten greener on its own due to warmer temperatures.

Hey, I have an idea. Put desalination plants on all the coasts and pump out enough water to keep the oceans lower, and refill the dropping Midwest underground lake, aerate the deserts, and increase clean water sources.

Now I have come up with an idea to dramatically reduce governments use of electricity, and saving local and state governments lost of money at the same time. But I think it is such a good idea that I am not sharing it as I want to be the one to profit if it is viable. (Dose that make me evil?)

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Actually we will change our oil consumption when something cheaper comes about.

There are 2 reasons for this. First people prefer to save money, at least generally they do. Second price is actually related to the energy to produce something, which is why the production of more expensive hybrids actually has been shown to result in more total energy used over its lifespan then a Hummer. (Part of the problem being such short battery life.)

The whole idea of climate change, or global warming, has become so politicized that it is in fact hard to find the truth about the matter.

If Kyoto was so great, why was America actually more successful not being part of it then most of the countries that were? (i.e. Total failure.)

The world is increasing its energy usage every year. Conservation and efficiency improvements help, but cover, at most, half of the increase each year. But this increase is part of the human race developing, and the only way to stop it is to halt human development.

We could have way less CO2 in the atmosphere then we do, but the wonderful environmentalists went to bat to save us from new-que-ler power. Now suddenly they are for it.

I currently use compact fluorescent lights. They have paid for themselves already, meaning there couldn’t be any more then $15 worth of energy in the package(s) I have bought, and since I have saved at least that much on my end, I have obviously saved energy. More importantly my monthly bill is lower.

Now back to global warming, again (as I keep repeating myself,) we must first prove that there is global warming, or climate change, (winter word for global warming) going on.

Next we need to prove that Humans are the cause. Plus we need to figure out what percentage of it we are causing.

Then we need to find out if it is good or bad.

All 3 questions are far from being answered. Last I knew, the temperature change was still not statistically significant since accurate temperature measurements have occurred.

Also it needs to be noted that the little ice age ended in the mid 1800’s, meaning we are still recovering from it.

The time we are living is called interglacial. Between glaciers. How do we know that if we were not here that we would not be headed to a world without ice caps? Its happened before.

Then the repeated line about Mars getting warmer also, and losing it’s ice caps, tells us that maybe something is going on with the Sun.

But we are increasing CO2 emissions, and they are greenhouse gases. (Which is actually not working in any way like a greenhouse, but I digress.) They can contribute to a warmer Earth. And using the science of the environmentalists, even if we went to extremes to reduce our CO2 output, the effects wouldn’t even be noticeable.

The political idea is to have rich countries pay the poor countries in some sort of shell game that does nothing to actually reduce CO2 production, but is actually back door way to turn the world into a global socialist experiment. (Hey, its worked so well in the past.)

One thing that seems to escape understanding is that only ice on land melting can affect ocean levels. The ice already in the oceans will not have any effect. But for every inch of land lost to higher water, we gain an inch in uncovered land.

We can’t predict weather very well a few days out, but know exactly how climate change works. I don’t think so, and yes they are related sciences.

Many people have learned about the multi year cycles of El-Nino, and La-Nina, but do not know of the 20 year cycles, 50 year cycles, 100 year cycles, and 500 - 1000 year cycles. (My numbers may be off here.) They are still struggling to figure out how El-Nino works.

And for the question is global warming good or bad, realize the growing season has increased, and the Earth has actually gotten greener on its own due to warmer temperatures.[/quote]

Exactly.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

The moon landing comparison is spot-on.
[/quote]

Not even close. The moon landing consumed a relatively small part of our economy, had very specific and direct goals, and was based on well-developed sciences.

Kyoto and ‘fixing global warming’ encompasses the world economy, has goals that are loosely associated with “success”, and is based on science that repeatedly invalidates or corrects itself.

More akin to us “defeating” communism.