Engineering News

This is getting absurd. You have to wonder how life ever survived the last 4 billion years without the BBC.

In 1950 the polar bear population was something like 5,000. Last year the population was about 25,000.

Will the Arctic ice cap melt this year? I seriously doubt it. The longest day of the year has passed and we should see the normal seasonal reversal take place at the end of July. That means the amount of Arctic ice will increase again.

For those that are having Climate Change Anxiety Syndrome (CCAS), don't fret. The Antarctic ice volumes are at record highs this year. In fact, the total ice mass on the planet Earth is about the same as it always has been.

Why all the fear mongering? Can you say a-g-e-n-d-a? I knew you could.

"For those that are having Climate Change Anxiety Syndrome (CCAS), don't fret. The Antarctic ice volumes are at record highs this year. In fact, the total ice mass on the planet Earth is about the same as it always has been."

Do you have a source for this? wouldnt mind reading it myself.

Here is a good source for the bears.

Southern hemisphere ice charts; chart1 and chart2. Chart 2 shows the increase over the last year or so above average for the last 30 years.

There were some other compelling articles that are on the net, but I just don't have time to find them now.

I have come in late on this, but can't resist commenting.

1. The report on the bear population has figures from surveys that were done over 20 years ago. This data has no current significance. Those surveys (or estimates) of a more recent date indicate a Polar Bear population decline. Did you actually read the report? It clearly states "In 2006, based on the work of the Polar Bear Specialist Group of the Species Survival Commission of the IUCN (all Canadian jurisdictions are represented at each PBSG meeting), the polar bear (as a species across its entire range) was up-listed from 'Lower Risk' to 'Vulnerable' on the IUCN Red List. This was due primarily to the acknowledged escalating threat posed by global warming and melting of sea ice."

2. The Souther Hemisphere ice charts show the figures for "sea ice". As the major proportion of Southern Hemisphere ice is "land ice", that is; the icecaps on the Antarctic continental land mass, an increase in sea ice indicates an increase in the depletion of the ice covering the land.

So your argument fails to convince.

I'm sorry if I bring a serious note to this jolly thread.

Buncha, (is that followed by 'Crap' by any chance)

I'm no scientist but I do take notice of ambiguities in your post.

"This was due primarily to the acknowledged escalating threat posed by global warming and melting of sea ice."

I think the threat is posed by those that would try to push this adjenda.

"The Souther Hemisphere ice charts show the figures for "sea ice". As the major proportion of Southern Hemisphere ice is "land ice", that is; the icecaps on the Antarctic continental land mass, an increase in sea ice indicates an increase in the depletion of the ice covering the land."

One does not necessarily follow the other. I just read about an international competition to build a new antarctic base because the weight of new snow was destroying the old one. Sometimes facts are made to fit.

Welcome aboard, and THANK YOU for injecting a bit of reality into what was seeming to be turning into a back-pat session for the "ain't no warming here" crowd. Sorry, guys, there is sufficient evidence that polar (north AND south) and Greenland icecaps, as well as mountain glaciers all over the globe are shrinking at an unprecedented (in our history) rate. I am not arguing anthropogenic influences here, merely the fact that it IS happening, whether a "natural" phenomenon only or not.

Bull-winkle.

http://ecoworld.com/blog/2008/04/17/antarcticas-ice-mass/

If you search, there are other web sites that confirm the same. The problem is called selective reporting on the part of the BBC and most mainstream (Chicken Little) news organizations.

Also, there is firm evidence (based on four different standard sources) that show a very rapid cooling trend for the last 18 months, not a warming trend. That trend is still continuing. Why the reversal? We don't know, but it seems to frustrate the Global Warming crowd, so now they just call it Climate Change. The rest of us call it Weather.

The evidence keeps mounting and mounting that the whole Global Warming alarm is a scam. Even if Man-made climate change is true, the whole process for analyzing and reporting this "science" is so perverted with bias and agenda that we will never know the truth, which is inconvenient for the rest of us.

That's not correct Anonymous Hero, and I know I've shown you many times articles that demonstrate that glaciers are retreating around the globe. I've also shown you several articles that contradict your "rapid cooling trend for the last 18 months", here is another one:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

You know, I know you're a good guy Anonymous Hero, from past interactions on non-global warming threads, but it hurts a little to see you fooled by this crap:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/giss-land-ocean-index-dives-in-jan08-matches-trends-for-uah-and-rss-satellite-data/

At least do me the favor of checking the data the article above quotes before you quote it. That's what that first link was, it was one of the four sources that the link above quotes. I've already shown you in the past that all 4 sources say just the opposite of what the article above is trying to say. The author of that blog is a despicable liar, I'm sorry to say it, but if you check his facts they don't work. It makes me sick. Stop letting these liars lead you in circles. Check their sources.

The problem isn't selective reporting, it's selective reading.

I understand AH. Your experience serves you well most of the time because most of the time panic is irrational and exagerated. But in this case I'm afraid the sky is falling, if only a little bit. I'm not of the opinion that this is going to be the end of the world, and nobody hates winter more than me (I don't ski), but there are all kinds of consequences to letting this go that we are already experiencing. You get a lower pH in the oceans as they try to absorb some of this Carbon Dioxide. You get stronger hurricanes since the waters that feed them their power are warmer. You get more extreme weather conditions, increased desertification, but perhaps most troubling is the reduction in glacial melt waters.

You see, in the U.S. we are blessed with rain year round, but in many countries rain is a seasonal phenomenon. The remainder of the year the rivers that provide the drinking water and irrigation for those countries come from mountain glaciers. As those glaciers disappear, the rivers dry up as well leading to desertification on a massive scale. It's a very real and frightening consequence of global warming.

By the way, the link you cited:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

is a NASA editorial. The second paragraph in the summary confirms it.

AH,

The link that I cited and you link to above is the

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation

For those of you who don't know, GISS stands for Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which is part of NASA.

I think its a bit much to characterize the 2007 Summation on Global Temperatre Trends from GISS as an "editorial".

I'm perplexed by your statement "The second paragraph in the summary confirms it" is it possible you meant a different paragragh, or did you mean the one I've copied and pasted below, and if so, what about it makes you think its an editorial?

Here is the second paragraph you refer to:

Figure 1 shows 2007 temperature anomalies relative to the 1951-1980 base period mean. The global mean temperature anomaly, 0.57°C (about 1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 mean, continues the strong warming trend of the past thirty years that has been confidently attributed to the effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases (GHGs) (Hansen et al. 2007). The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.

Figure 1, above. (a) Annual surface temperature anomaly relative to 1951-1980 mean, based on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and ship and satellite measurements of sea surface temperature. (b) Global map of surface temperature anomalies for 2007. (Figure also available as large GIF or PDF.)

Arctic Warmth

The map reveals that the greatest warming has been in the Arctic and neighboring high latitude regions. Polar amplification is an expected characteristic of global warming, as the loss of ice and snow engenders a positive feedback via increased absorption of sunlight. The large Arctic warm anomaly of 2007 is consistent with observed record low Arctic sea ice cover in September 2007.

Here is the text (first sentence):

""Global warming stopped in 1998," has become a recent mantra of those who wish to deny the reality of human-caused global warming."

That is not the makings of a scholarly paper nor the fact-based report I would expect from a NASA scientific paper. It is obviously an opinion, not relevant to the presentation of the data, and it is in the second paragraph of the 'Summary' near the end of the paper.

First, this simply illustrates bias in the report by attacking a group ad hominem, which is a fallacy of argument. Second, the presented data does not make the link of global temperature change to human activity. It is stated as such in the summary, but not substantiated by the facts in the paper.

Now, if we look at the GISS raw data, maybe you can help me, but the raw GISS data does seem to point to a cooling trend. Am I wrong? I don't know or care about the second article you cited, I just want to correctly interpret the facts from the raw data.

Stop using the phrase "Ad Hominem". Use your own words and ideas.

It's the official report from NASA. It has that phrase at the end because clowns keep misusing there data. Here's a related statement from the American Physical Society:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth's climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

It drives me crazy that a you can't see they are playing you AH. You've got to get your head out of the sand and realize we've got a problem and we've got to address it. If people like you don't start stepping up and add a measured voice of reason of how to solve the problem, we're gonna have more debacles like Ethanol which I pointed out years ago would cause crazy food inflation, which it did.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/71190 (Flashback to 2007)
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/23003 (Flashback to Dec 2006)
http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/13783 (Flashback to Oct 2006)

What you don't get, we're not the ones being irrational here.

I'm not so sure we aren't the ones being irrational here, Roger. Trying to convince some of our esteemed colleagues here that they have been misinformed, duped, lied to, bamboozled, hornswoggled, and flim-flammed seems to be an extremely irrational act. After all, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

Personally, I'd prefer not to believe in bad news either, but the facts are there for all to see. Just because some gas-bag with a similar political philosophy to mine says red is green doesn't change the color of the leaves on my trees. Fortunately, I am capable of hearing my own B.S. alarm go off over the clamor, so I ignore that stuff.

None at all. Like I said, I deeply respect your opinions and enjoy our conversations.

Right back at ya.

See Del, its all good. No need for Antarctica.