Yet Another Global Warming Keystone Crumbles: Arctic Ice ‘Tipping Point’ Disproven
New evidence now undermines one of the linchpins of the Catastrophic Global Warming hypothesis — the feedback loop which is projected to cause global temperatures to spike upward in future decades once the Arctic ice sheet sheds enough square mileage; the loss of the ice’s reflectivity will (in theory) allow the absorption of more sunlight, which will cause more warming, which will melt more ice, and so on, until the polar ice caps are gone completely.
But a new study by Danish researchers and reported by the BBC now throws that basic assumption into question:
Arctic ‘tipping point’ may not be reached
Scientists say that current concerns over a tipping point in the disappearance of Arctic sea ice may be misplaced.
Danish researchers analysed ancient pieces of driftwood found in Northern Greenland which they say is an accurate way of measuring the extent of the ancient ice loss.
Writing in the journal Science, the team found evidence that sea ice levels were about 50% lower than today when temperatures warmed around 5,000 years ago.
They argue that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely, as changes to wind systems can slow down the rate of melting.
To put the rest of the article into plain English:
Danish scientists found they could accurately estimate past Arctic ice extent by analyzing frozen driftwood embedded in ancient ice. And they discovered that during a long-ago warming phase called the Holocene Climate Optimum, there was actually much less Arctic ice coverage back then than there is today (or will be in the future under pessimistic projections). And yet, even so — the Holocene ice sheet recovered and regained all its losses, even though it was well past the supposed “tipping point” beyond which the ice was projected to never return.
So it turns out there may not be a “tipping point” after all — that the ice extent can shrink and grow naturally, and that the loss of reflectivity during low ice periods will not allow so much solar absorption that the polar ice caps will be lost forever due to a runaway positive feedback loop.
While this may seem like a minor esoteric point, it actually refutes most of the disaster scenarios promulgated by global warming alarmists, most of which — rising sea levels, flooded coastlines, irreversible climate change, sudden rapid increase in global temperatures — are based on the assumption of this runaway feedback loop.
But now we can see that it was just that — an “assumption.” They never had any proof that it was true. And now that we finally have some direct evidence of past Arctic ice extent, we see that the tipping point was not reached when it ought to have been under the alarmists’ theories.
Add this to the ever-growing pile of new evidence emerging this year which seriously calls into question the entire Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.
I don’t think any of these minor changes in theory disprove the fact that we’re still making a mess of thing and that there will be sever consequences if we keep trucking long without changing how we operate as a society!
And you of course have some evidence which you can cite to back up your feelings?
I think that was an attempt at sarcasm. Weird thing is, you can never be sure.
It’s a sign of the times that it’s no longer possible to write saracasm any more as the next day it winds up as “serious fact” in a speech by Obama, Gore, Sharpton or one of the other losers.
Well, it is clear you have no other option but to suicude, immediately.
Mother Gaia demands your immediate extinction. Right after you write a check for the balance of your estate to the Foundation for the Propagation of the Anthropogenic Global Warming Myth.
The future belongs to those than show up for it. I’m sure you will be missed. Really.
Tell the Goracle to give back the oscar and the peace prize. They were based on false information. And that movie wasn’t good enough to qualify for an oscar under one of the fiction categories.
“accurately estimate”
Isn’t that an oxymoron? There! Your entire article is disproven and proves that global warming is real.
If the Earth’s climate were subject to so many positive feedback loops as the warm-mongers claim, it’s climate would’ve ran away (like Venus) long ago. It appears the climate is more stable than claimed when examined over long timeframes. That suggests our understanding of the factors that control climate is seriously lacking. The Earth’s climate has changed continuously over the course of geologic time and will continue to do so. Geologic evidence shows a history of ice ages followed by global warming many times in the past, many of them predating the existance of the human race let alone SUVs.
“… seriously calls into question the entire Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis.”
It was always in question. All the new evidence puts the question to rest. AGW was always junk science.
Still, believers like Balboa, above, will look at the mounting evidence against AGW, look at all the obvious manipulation of numbers by the official AGW people at the CRU, look at all the refusing to release their data, and the believers will still believe. AGW is a cult.
Pedantic point: It’s positive feedback loops that run away; negative feedback self-stabilizes. I think the writer meant negative.
Good catch — I just fixed it. Thanks.
The article is telling you that *this one system effect*, which does not drive warming, but merely makes it go faster after it reaches a certain point, may not happen.
The article doesn’t change a thing about AGW.
Sorry.
Also, did you know that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere makes the ocean more acidic, and in so doing leaches the calcium from marine ecosystems? Calcium is required by everything that has bones, lays eggs, or otherwise creates rigid structures.
Even if global warming wasn’t a problem, too much carbon dioxide would still be a world-killer.
As soon as an AGW-er backs down and changes the subject to, “Well, all that pollution is bad for the environment anyway,” then you know you’ve won the argument.
Look, I’m an environmentalist, and I want to decrease pollution. But that’s NOT THE SAME THING as accepting the Global Warming catastrophe scenarios.
Everybody knows that the AGW scare is just a way to make environmental concerns seem more urgent and necessary. But you’re not supposed to admit that in public. You need to keep up the facade that it’s a real crisis, so everyone panics and agrees to the “mitigation: proposals.
Sheesh! Get with the program.
from wiki:
“Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[2] representing an increase of approaching 30%”
the problem with this statement is that the ability to “accurately” measure ph is orders of magnitude greater today than in 1751. also it appears that the ocean is still a basic environment.
By “more acidic,” you really mean “less basic.” Right? Check ph levels. But, it would be good of you to explain to us how warming water would absorb more CO2 than colder water. Have you ever left a cold Coke on your desk and had it gain fizz as it warmed?
You can’t argue increased warming and “acidity gain” at the same time.
Pick one!
“Also, did you know that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere makes the ocean more acidic”
No, it doesn’t.
“and in so doing leaches the calcium from marine ecosystems?”
No, it doesn’t.
Think for yourself for a change, please. There are massive calcium mineral deposits under the oceans. If the ocean somehow becomes more acidic, what happens? Some of that calcium dissolves. More calcium dissolved in the water means more calcium available for living organisms — and no change to the ocean’s ph.
Did you know that people keeping reef aquariums purposefully add CO2 to their tanks? They inject CO2 into “reactors” to dissolve calcium carbonate and make the calcium available to the corals *AND* to keep the ph alkaline.
Thanks Kristan
“Writing in the journal Science, the team found evidence that ice levels were about 50% lower 5,000 years ago.
They say changes to wind systems can slow down the rate of melting.
They argue, therefore, that a tipping point under current scenarios is unlikely.”
Nothing in the above has anything to do with disproving GW. How many people died in the heat this year? How many cattle died? How many “wild” fires this year? How many dust storms?
How often do we get treated to lectures about how weather and climate are not the same, when there are record cold snaps in the winter?
you are so far behind that you believe you are ahead
Just to mention, the Russians opened their Arctic sea-lanes to shipping two weeks ago … this ain’t never happened before the 21st century.
That’s why the US Navy is right to conclude that AGW ain’t a future reality … it’s a *present* reality. To which the Pope agrees. As do America’s hunting-and-fishing organizations.
Why folks call AGW a “liberal” belief beats me … when the military, the religious leaders, and America’s leading conservationists all are on-board with the science.
Meanwhile, precision satellite measurements of gravity affirm that the Greenland and Antarctic icecaps both are losing mass … exactly as the scientists predicted.
So Get Ready To Sweat, Folks …
URL: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Ah yes, here comes the one-note samba. Same references, same links, same references to military ‘experts.’ Try these:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/02mar_spotlesssun/
“During the deepest solar minimum in a century, ironically, space became a more dangerous place to travel. At the same time, the heating action of UV rays normally provided by sunspots was absent, so Earth’s upper atmosphere began to cool and collapse.”
If you look at their graph, and compare it to data at:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
You will see that solar activity correlates with US historical temperatures.
Nobody can debate that the planet is warmer than it was in 1900. The issue is the arrogance to believe our pathetic ‘civilization’ is somehow more powerful than a giant controlled nuclear reactor.
Then we have the feudalists at the UN shaking us down for $76 trillion to ‘fix’ the problem, when their ‘security forces’ couldn’t even protect disarmed victims in Rwanda from massacre, and used women for sex toys all over the globe.
http://www.amazon.com/Four-Hundred-Years-Gun-Control/dp/0981738222/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
This is why AGW alarmism is terrorism.
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/07/23/terrorism-and-global-warming-alarmism-same-motives-and-outcomes/
Get ready to sweat, Dr Science. People are waking up to your AGW terrorism. Why else couldn’t The Royal 0 get his crap and trade scam through when he controlled Congress?
*dances a little to the samba*
Johnny, Johnny, Johnny, I love the way you rise to the bait, like a trout after a fly… It’s so amusing.
I also love the rhetorical device you use here “Just to mention, the Russians opened their Arctic sea-lanes to shipping two weeks ago … this ain’t never happened before the 21st century.”
Makes it sound so dire does it not? First time this century!!
Of course the century is less than a dozen years old, so it’s not quite the same as saying “First time in the 20th century” in say, 1990. Every time one of your blocks gets kicked away, you retreat back to your same tired positions which have been repeatedly refuted.
You know John-boy, I gave you the opportunity to tell us what your solutions were right here and you were conspicuously silent. So I say it again. If you truly believe the crap you spout, what are your solutions? No more dodges, no more alinskite tactics.
What.
Do.
You.
Propose.
We.
Do?
Answer the question sir, or admit you have no answers and are nothing but a troll who has been duped by a provably wrong religion.
Gee Patrick … parse it a little more carefully why don’cha … “This ain’t never happened before” … means the present Arctic melt is completely unprecedented in the entire history of seafaring … hey … no *WONDER* the US Navy takes AGW seriously … as do the Russians … as does the Pope … as do sportsmen and fishermen … and mathematicians, scientists, and engineers … and pretty much every thoughtful person in the world.
They all now appreciate that AGW is sobering reality.
American conservatism should too. Yah grasp it, now?
Really….you are hired by Pajamas to come here and poke readers with a stick, right? You make inane arguments as strawmen for us to knock down….to keep us pumped up huh?.
The Pope huh? I had to laugh at that one. Not bad…not bad….
Pope calls for action on climate change
URL: http://www.zimbio.com/The+Roman+Catholic+Church/articles/QIaQEUJOLzn/Pope+calls+action+climate+change
Fallacy — argument from authority. This is a particularly poor example, because the Pope is not an authority on any related subject.
“means the present Arctic melt is completely unprecedented in the entire history of seafaring”
BS. Seafaring goes back 12,000-14,000 years or more. There have been warmer climates than now over the last 14,000 years.
We can’t even say it’s the most melt since the beginning of modern arctic exploration. The records just aren’t good enough.
LOL … Rob yah somehow overlooked the Pope’s choice of authors:
Gee … the Pope chose exclusively from scientific disciplines that PJM/Tatler views as deluded and/or corrupt agents of the AGW conspiracy.
Hmmm … *someone’s* deluded, that’s for sure … yah think it’s the Pope?
Or maybe … just maybe … it’s PJM/Tatler that’s got it wrong?
—————-
Disciplines of the Pontifical Academy
URL: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/
The AGW crowd will never define what evidence they would accept as disproving AGW. Literally anything that happens is evidence of AGW to them. Rain? AGW! Drought? AGW! Hurricanes? AGW! Hell some of them try to blame earthquakes on AGW!
If a thesis or hypothesis cannot be falsified, it is not science, it is religion.
“to contemplate the observed retreat of the mountain glaciers”
Except there is no universal “retreat” of glaciers. Some are growing, some are shrinking.
You really don’t pay attention to this stuff, do you?
Rob … either your post is entirely wrong on the facts … or else, the consensus of the Holy Roman Catholic Church is entirely wrong.
Heck, let’s leave it to folks’ common sense to decide which. OK?
Scientist says listen to Pope on climate change
US Catholics On-Line
URL: http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2011/05/scientist-says-listen-pope-climate-change
Another fallacy — you’re defining “any thoughtful person” to mean “anyone who agrees with me”. I’ll leave it to others to classify the particular fallacy; I’ll just point out that you’re an ideologue who cannot let go of his fantasy of AGW despite all the contrary evidence.
Who cares if it gets warmer? I for one welcome some warming. Civilization flourishes during warming periods. Who wants to live in an icebox anyway?
How’s that rate of atmospheric heat loss working out? I thought that NASA just took some valuable time out of their hectic ‘Making Muslims Feel Aerospace Relevant’ schedule to say that the models ‘predicting’ heat loss were all wrong. If you base your models on faulty suppositions you get a faulty conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out.
Give it a rest. Please. Find something else to pontificate about. Go support water purification for Africa or spraying the damn DDT again. Care about something that will actually save lives for a change. Every time AGW gets another kick to the cojones there you are making apologies, strawman arguments, or simply another ad hominem argument. There has got to be a better use for your energy and time.
BTW good strawman set up and delivery. The article was not about whether things are getting warmer or not but whether or not there is a ‘tipping point’ beyond which the arctic ice sheet cannot recover. Simple common sense (and this study) would indicate there was no such thing since our planet has been much hotter and colder and we still have ice caps. But who am I to argue with a ‘physicist’
This particular “physicist” is, in fact, a political hack. He’ll tell you he’s a “pragmatist”, but the best description of a political “pragmatist” I’ve ever heard is someone who will bow to whoever flatters his (meager) intellect. This joker believes in AGW because it’s what he’s been told all the “smart” people believe — that even makes up the bulk of his arguments. He can’t argue the science, either because he’s incapable of it or because he’s unaware of it.
It takes extraordinary faith to live in Seattle this summer and believe that the world is burning up. I have to hand it to you. You have the faith of a saint. Maybe that’s how you’ll end up.
So AGW was going on 5000 years ago, too?
The Climate change mob reminds me of the story of a man traveling by train in Connecticut one day. He looked up to see another man in the compartment tearing strips of toilet paper from an extra large roll he held in his hand, and throwing them out the window, as fast as he could.
” What are you doing?” asked the first man. ” Don’t you know?” answered the tissue thrower. ” I’m saving your life. It keeps herds of wild elephants from rushing the train.”
“But there aren’t any elephants in Connecticut” said the first man.
“See?” said the paper thrower, in a triumphant tone. ” It WORKS!”
Except, of course, the Connecticut loony wasn’t after money and power.
Here’s the Catholic answer to Howard’s question “What do we do?”:
Heck, Howard … why waste time on puny ad hominem abuse? … `cuz now, PJM/Tatler‘s skeptics have all the ammunition they need … to abuse the Vicarius Christi himself.
——————————-
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences
Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene
URL: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/
Hmm, so you give us once again general, “well we need to develop technologies to deal with this.” Well whoop-de-do John boy. I asked you what YOU propose we do. Me, not Howard. And I asked you for specifics.
Not Pie-in-the-Sky, we call on people to develop XY and Z bull crap.
If AGW is the existential threat you claim it to be then obviously you should have workable solutions to fix the problem. If you don’t, then perhaps we should all go out and buy bermuda shorts rather than worry about the bloviating a few self-righteous prigs who propose to do nothing but wring their hands.
Provided of course, that you’re right, which it’s becoming clearer and clearer you are not.
I’ve asked you to explain the Roman and Medieval warm periods, which were warmer than it is now. You ignore the point. I’ve asked you in the past to explain how your theories relate to the Maunder Minimum and the little Ice Age. You again, simply retreat to an appeal to authority.
Tell me sir, do you do your own research is such a haphazard fashion? Does the great Dr. John Sidles tolerate this level of sloppiness and closed-mindedness from his students?
You accuse us of being closed minded, yet ignore any research which contradicts what you’ve decided you know. Only a fool ignores what is in front of him because it disagrees with his world view. Are you such a fool sir?
Ugh……I was joking about the pope.
AGW proponents always end up cherry-picking evidence and authorities. I love that a ‘physicist’ picked the pope, leader of an organization that persecuted Galileo and then took 500 years to admit they were wrong, essentially failing to recognize that we live in a solar centered system instead of an earth centered one. It is laughable beyond measure.
In fact, the current pope’s background includes being the head of the very division of the church which persecuted Galileo. I am having a laughing fit again…..geez…..
The pope is an expert on popeness…beyond that, nothing. Ok maybe on pope hats….or popemobiles…..or is that part of popeness too?
Suthenboy, your remarks show equal understanding of Catholicism and of climate science … neither understanding being very deep, needless to say.
The Catholic Church learns slowly … and by that same token, what it learns, it learns deeply. The Church respects learning … disdains political ideology … and takes the long view. What the Catholic Church has learned in recent decades, is that AGW is real.
As for PJM/Tatler’s peculiar brand of ideology-first conservatism, there is very little evidence that it is capable of learning at all … any more than ideology-first communism was capable of learning.
Meanwhile, every satellite-flying nation on earth can see that the Soviet-side Arctic sea lanes are wide open for shipping, right now … and the Canada-side Arctic sea lanes are on-track to open later this month.
Like the navigator says in the movie Doctor Strangelove, “I’m sorry sir, but those *ARE* the figures.”
American conservatism had better adapt to them.
——————-
Check For Yourself
URL: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
You’re really not good at this science stuff, are you? Was your dissertation a long series of “because so-and-so said”?
And you’ve never addressed all the failed predictions of the AGW cult.
Weird… almost as if you can’t actually address the science…
Keep in mind that this is the finding of one study amongst a large and ever growing body of what many, if not most scientists, would see as contradictory. It may, however, be an ‘Aha’ moment that tempers one side of the debate and so deserves due attention, consideration, and debate. This should also serve to show that science is about exploration, about acquiring information for analysis and debate, and about, by and large, serving the public. You cannot berate scientists on in one breath (say – in the extreme – a global conspiracy amongst climate scientists) and in another breath jump on board in full support of scientists when findings that support your chosen view suddenly arrise.
Science is and always will be in constant flux.
Personally, I think the focus on global warming (or, more broadly, global climate change) is misplaced in the face of the more tangible – and I venture to say far less arguable – effects of our species’ depletion of and impacts on natural resources. If we first bring sustainability into focus and make true progress towards lessening our strain on the environment, be it pollution or overfishing, I believe our contributions to global warming – should they indeed be a factor – will naturally subside.
Patrick, why do you waste time calling the Vicarius Christi and his Church of Rome advisors “self-righteous prigs”?
Do you think that advances conservatism.
Read what Pontifical Academy wrote … then comment.
The Church is offering answers and objectives that are grounded in morality and science … whereas abuse, smears, willful ignorance, and hatred are the tools of … well … the Deceiver.
Isn’t that correct?
———————-
A Report by the Working Group Commissioned by the Pontifical Academy of Sciences
PDF: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/PAS_Glacier_110511_final.pdf
The Deceiver? The Deceiver….!? Oh my god, you really are off of your meds. I am beginning to understand your position now. You are appealing to magic….
Guys, magical thinking is at the root of AGW . For any interested parties, pop over to reason.com and have a look at ‘A trick of the mind’, Ronald Bailey’s little review of ‘The believing brain’ by Michael Shermer. Or, better yet, aquire a copy of Stewart Guthrie’s work ‘Faces in the clouds’.
So you admit AGW is a religious issue with you, “physicist”?
These people do nothing but insult you – they have very little proof of their assertions so they resort to continual insults. I admire your patience. There are many lurking here who are learning from what you write. Thank You
Do you ever answer a direct question?
Once again, in small words. What do YOU propose we do? How do YOU propose we fix this?
Patrick, only very rarely do I have ideas that other folks haven’t had earlier.
Do if you honestly want to learn about both the science and the morality of climate change—which is a good idea—then Pope Benedict and his scientific advisors definitely can serve you better than I can.
———————————–
Benedict XVI and climate change
URL: http://www.cssr.org.au/justice_matters/default.cfm?loadref=355
Again you dodge and appeal to authority. What evidence would you accept as proof you are wrong?
Patrick, that’s a great question, and the answer ain’t complicated. For tradition-minded mathematicians, scientists and engineers (this includes me) what counts is the traditional trinity of (what else?) math, science, and engineering.
That trinity is: (1) quantitative physical theories solidly grounded in well-posed mathematics, (2) confirmation of theoretical predictions in controlled laboratory experiments, and (3) further confirmation by observations in nature and/or in practical engineering applications of the theory.
In consequence of the preceding triple-cross-check, in brand-new scientific disciplines progress tends to occur with the rush of an avalanche (all three cross-checks being brand-new). In older scientific disciplines—like climatology—progress tends to occur more slowly and predictably, rather like the grinding of a glacier.
AGW is now an older scientific discipline … the key ideas of AGW were set forth in the 1930s-50s … nowadays our 21st century understanding of AGW is advancing with the steady grinding power of glaciers … the glaciers that *USED* to cover America’s Glacier National Park.
——————————
No More Glaciers in Glacier National Park by 2020?
URL: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/03/090302-glaciers-melting.html
Oh yeah … what would it take to *disconfirm* AGW?
It’s simple (`cuz the rules of science are fair).
(1) Alternative quantitative theories of heat transport,
(2) that are confirmed in laboratory experiments, and
(3) that explain the decades of warming already seen in Nature, and
(4) that successfully predict *new* phenomena *not* predicted by AGW.
Such revolutions *do* happen in science (but not often). At present, denialist climatology scores poorly on all four counts … that’s the common-sense reason why practicing scientists don’t take denialism seriously.
One more item, Patrick … if you’re seriously interested in how this process works … there *IS* a scientific prediction contest running for this summer’s Arctic ice-melt … and there *ARE* entries from AGW skeptics in the prediction pool … most notably from the skeptical folks at “WattsUpWithThat.com”.
If the skeptical “WattsUpWithThat” low-melt predictions prove correct … and they have a well-grounded theoretical basis for their predictions … and laboratory experiments confirm that theoretical base … then the “WattsUpWithThat” folks definitely will gain respect from the scientific community (otherwise not).
We’ll know by mid-September … no politics-first bobbing-and-weaving … `cuz everyone’s predictions are on-record.
—————————————
Summer predictions for Arctic sea ice
URL: http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/06/16/summer-predictions-for-arctic-sea-ice/#more-442
(3) that explain the decades of warming already seen in Nature, and
So how do you explain the lack of warming in recent decades? You also ignore the solar cycles which coincided with the last time it was warming. You never bother to explain the Little Ice Age nor the Medieval or Roman Warm periods.
Until you explain to me how we are in dire straits when the temperatures were demonstrably warmer centuries ago, I will continue to discount you as a crank and a fool.
… “discount you” … along with discounting the Church of Rome … the majority of the world’s mathematicians, scientists, and engineers … most of America’s wildlife, hunting and fishing organizations … and a solid majority of high-technology businessmen … hey, that list is gettin’ kinda long, eh?
Yah know Patrick … ain’t yer ever-growing list of “cranks and fools” getting to be … well, kinda long? … hmmmm … did’ja stop to ponder, that description might have somehow got swapped around?
`Cuz definitely, there’s funny business at the right-hand end of this graph.
———————–
Climate change: How do we know?
URL: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Zombie’s point is just another nail in the coffin of AGW (although not NGW – natural global warming). On the carbon debate, there is simply not enough of it to make a difference (do you know how small 320 PPM is?). The oceans have lots of carbon dioxide (much like a seltzerr bottle); when it gets warmer, the oceans release CO2 (like seltzer does) – watch for spurious correlation. Than just a short while ago, NASA released a report indicating that the earth loses heat in much greater amounts than was previously thought thereby moderating any build-up of warming that may be occurring. Then, again, there is the CERN report, I believe about cosmic rays (sunspots) and the earth’s weather, for which CERN requests it not be interpreted as countering AGW. Finally, we have what Zombie is reporting here.
As I have said once before (quoting another commenter on PJW) AGW is all Mann-made.
“Winds” will “slow” the rate of ice melting. Well, seems like another excuse by the deniers not to act on global warming. The situation it is just not the “warming” that is deadly (yes it is!). The changes in the ocean chemistry is too. Ocean acidification is a also very real and show that human carbon emissions must be stopped. Carbon gas is absorbed by the waters turns to carbonic acid and lowers the ph,30% less alkaline since the industrail age began. Marine life (especially hard shelled creatures) can not adapt. So, try to chip away and let the young folks deal with the mess we live them.
SHAME
In breaking news, the NorthEast Passage (Russia’s side) has been open to shipping for the past two weeks … and just today, satellite images show that the NorthWest Passage (Canada/US) side has opened too.
Of course, commercial airline pilots flying the Arctic routes have seen this break-up coming for several weeks.
More evidence that the climatologists are absolutely right … no wonder the world’s military, commercial, conservationist, and religious organizations all are on-board too.
Yeah … the AGW denialists are becoming increasingly isolated … and looking increasingly short-sighted and foolish … `cuz these plain-as-day planetary realities are compelling even mainstream conservatives to get on-board.
————————
Study details glacier ice loss following ice shelf collapse
URL: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20110725_iceshelf.html
This article is so far out on a limb, it even sways the deniers to believe.
Yeah, “zombie” read a whole lot more into that Science article than anything the article actually *SAID*. `Cuz CO2 from carbon-burning has *ALREADY* pushed our planet *WAY* out-of-range of any of the climate fluctuations that the Science article talks about.
And it’s funny … somehow or other, “zombie” forgot to mention the article’s very first sentence: “Global warming will probably cause the disappearance of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean during this century.”
But heck … “zombies” never did have much regard for the Vatican, the Pentagon, the mathematicians, scientists, and engineers … and zombies don’t have much regard for plain ordinary folks who hunt and fish and farm … `cuz that ain’t how “zombies” roll.
Climate change: How do we know?
URL: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Hi, Neat post. There’s an issue together with your website in web explorer, may check this? IE nonetheless is the marketplace leader and a good component to other people will miss your magnificent writing due to this problem.