Ice melt problem grows
Lewis DiuguidAs climate change talks continue this week in Doha, Qatar, research shows that the ice-melt problem in the Arctic is growing.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association reports that this year the Arctic ice melted at a record pace with sea levels climbing in the region. CBS News reports that the ongoing change has disrupted life on land and in the sea.
Greenland also experienced the warmest summer in 170 years. That can’t be good for the planet’s ecosystem.
These are issues being duscussed at the climate change summit in Doha. But the outcome of the talks are unlikely to lead to substantive change worldwide to arrest the escalating, man-made global warming problem.
George Hunsucker
Northland
5 months, 2 weeks agopoor lewis, one day it’s global warming. Then, after getting chastised for that indiscretion we are back to climate change.
Makes no differnece lewis, it is still merely libs wanting more government control of our lives, this time trying to use junk science….
you poor libs…..
Johnathon Busby
5 months, 2 weeks agoClimate change (or whatever term we have to use to try and prevent the knee-jerk denials from the cons) is a very real phenomenon. There are two solutions to the lack of public will. Either the nation/world can re-invest in education, which might take too long, or a concerted minority might be able to push through the needed reforms despite the complaints of the majority, who cannot see beyond their next paycheck.
As for the accusation of wanting to control peoples’ lives, the GOP still invades our bedrooms and hospitals; the accusation that only the Dems use invasive government is completely hollow.
JR Beillenhouser
5 months, 2 weeks agoIf you actually are looking at the science of it, a new peered reviewed study shows that global warming has not been occurring for 16 years.
http://theweek.com/article/index/234827/did-global-warming-stop-16-years-ago
This article is written pretty neutral.
“The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,” Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech university
Phil Jones now says that their computer models are not accurate (from the Daily Mail article).
Critics say the Daily Mail simply “cherrypicked” the data. ”
Regardless, there is a lot of cherry picking occurring. These include the Goodard temperatures which are continually being adjusted upward for the past century, (Dr Hansen) and the famous Mann hockey stick, where sceptics claim had it’s samples taken not from a forest of trees, but only several trees in Siberia. Trees not meeting criteria, were not included in the sample.
Unfortunately, this is a major political issue instead of being science, like it should be. Lewis’s other article about the UN ties into this very nicely, because it is the UN that made it political when they released wild speculations about global warming, many items which have already been proven false, or that do not have adequate research behind it to stand up. Sceptics see he UN’s plan as a way redestribute money to developing countries due to AGW.
Is global warming occuring? The previous 16 years prior to the past 16 did see an increase in global temperatures. But can this be attributed to man’s activity and in particular CO2?. That is still up for debate. Logically, if CO2 is the driving component behind climate change, how can we not see the predicted increase in temperatures? By their own estimates, scientists previously made claims that there may be pauses in temperatures rising but an 8 year period of no temperature rise was impossible. But CO2 has been put into the atmosphere at a greater volume the past 16 years than the previous 16. The models of both Hansen and Jones have predicted huge gains in global temps, but they have not been realized. Currently, as noted by Phil Jones, the numbers don’t add up.
The reality of AGW is this. Scientist who support AGW have yet to show that it is occuring due to CO2. Having the luxury to look back at what was predicted, every model has been wrong. Sea levels have not risen to the predicted levels, temperatures have not increased to the predicted levels, and weather related events have not increased to the predicted levels (hurricanes are down in the last decade). This is not to say that it is not occurring, but if the scientists want to be taken seriously, at some point the models are going to have to be correct.
JR Beillenhouser
5 months, 2 weeks agoIf you actually are looking at the science of it, a new peered reviewed study shows that global warming has not been occurring for 16 years.
http://theweek.com/article/index/234827/did-global-warming-stop-16-years-ago
This article is written pretty neutral.
“The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,” Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech university
Phil Jones now says that their computer models are not accurate (from the Daily Mail article).
Critics say the Daily Mail simply “cherrypicked” the data. ”
Regardless, there is a lot of cherry picking occurring. These include the Goodard temperatures which are continually being adjusted upward for the past century, (Dr Hansen) and the famous Mann hockey stick, where sceptics claim had it’s samples taken not from a forest of trees, but only several trees in Siberia. Trees not meeting criteria, were not included in the sample.
Unfortunately, this is a major political issue instead of being science, like it should be. Lewis’s other article about the UN ties into this very nicely, because it is the UN that made it political when they released wild speculations about global warming, many items which have already been proven false, or that do not have adequate research behind it to stand up. Sceptics see he UN’s plan as a way redestribute money to developing countries due to AGW.
Is global warming occuring? The previous 16 years prior to the past 16 did see an increase in global temperatures. But can this be attributed to man’s activity and in particular CO2?. That is still up for debate. Logically, if CO2 is the driving component behind climate change, how can we not see the predicted increase in temperatures? By their own estimates, scientists previously made claims that there may be pauses in temperatures rising but an 8 year period of no temperature rise was impossible. But CO2 has been put into the atmosphere at a greater volume the past 16 years than the previous 16. The models of both Hansen and Jones have predicted huge gains in global temps, but they have not been realized. Currently, as noted by Phil Jones, the numbers don’t add up.
The reality of AGW is this. Scientist who support AGW have yet to show that it is occuring due to CO2. Having the luxury to look back at what was predicted, every model has been wrong. Sea levels have not risen to the predicted levels, temperatures have not increased to the predicted levels, and weather related events have not increased to the predicted levels (hurricanes are down in the last decade). This is not to say that it is not occurring, but if the scientists want to be taken seriously, at some point the models are going to have to be correct.
JR Beillenhouser
5 months, 2 weeks agoSorry for the double post,
The real issue facing the US, whose current administration wants to put in carbon taxes is that, no matter what you do, if AGW is real, we could stop all use of coal, gas, and oil and it wouldn’t do a single thing to stop it. Developing countries are not going to give up cheap energy. Anyone telling you differently is just lying to themselves.
Additionally, the major problem with AGW is that the same people promoting it promoted many other falsehoods from our recent past including acid rain, electromagnetic fields from powerlines and a cancer connection, silicone breast implants and a cancer connection, DDT and a cancer connection, etc. Each of these in the long term was proven wrong. The removal of DDT actually had the negative affect of allowing millions to die from malaria, when a cheap risk free chemical could be used to kill mosquitoes.
I would challenge each of you to read both the pro and anti AGW arguments, to do some research, and to see if in fact the predictions match what is occurring.
Hey Lewis, I just provided a thoughtful analysis of AGW. It would be nice if we could expect you, a supposed journalist, would do the same. It provides actual discussion about the major players in the field, actual information from peer reviewed research. Please do your job instead of just parroting the pro AGW crowd.