IGX

Summer Arctic sea ice has declined by about 40% since satellite measurements began in the 1970s.

TomFurman wrote:Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/

TomFurman wrote:Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?

Andy81 wrote:

TomFurman wrote:Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/

Stop posting that kind of shit, Tom. You're hurting dmw's feelings.

the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors.

Sangoma wrote:

TomFurman wrote:Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/

Updated NASA satellite data show the polar ice caps remained at approximately their 1979 extent until the middle of the last decade. Beginning in 2005, however, polar ice modestly receded for several years. By 2012, polar sea ice had receded by approximately 10 percent from 1979 measurements. (Total polar ice area – factoring in both sea and land ice – had receded by much less than 10 percent, but alarmists focused on the sea ice loss as “proof” of a global warming crisis.)

A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.

In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?

The answer to the question asked in the last paragraph would be interesting.

The frequency of polar ice cap stories may have abated, but the tone and content has not changed at all. Here are some of the titles of news items I pulled yesterday from the front two pages of a Google News search for “polar ice caps”:

“Climate change is melting more than just the polar ice caps”

“2020: Antarctic ice shelf could collapse”

“An Arctic ice cap’s shockingly rapid slide into the sea”

“New satellite maps show polar ice caps melting at ‘unprecedented rate’”

The only Google News items even hinting that the polar ice caps may not have melted so much (indeed not at all) came from overtly conservative websites. The “mainstream” media is alternating between maintaining radio silence on the extended run of above-average polar ice and falsely asserting the polar ice caps are receding at an alarming rate.




To be sure, receding polar ice caps are an expected result of the modest global warming we can expect in the years ahead. In and of themselves, receding polar ice caps have little if any negative impact on human health and welfare, and likely a positive benefit by opening up previously ice-entombed land to human, animal, and plant life. Nevertheless, polar ice cap extent will likely be a measuring stick for how much the planet is or is not warming.

The Earth has warmed modestly since the Little Ice Age ended a little over 100 years ago, and the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors. As a result, at some point in time, NASA satellite instruments should begin to report a modest retreat of polar ice caps. The modest retreat – like that which happened briefly from 2005 through 2012 – would not be proof or evidence of a global warming crisis. Such a retreat would merely illustrate that global temperatures are continuing their gradual recovery from the Little Ice Age. Such a recovery – despite alarmist claims to the contrary – would not be uniformly or even on balance detrimental to human health and welfare. Instead, an avalanche of scientific evidence indicates recently warming temperatures have significantly improved human health and welfare, just as warming temperatures have always done.

dead man walking wrote:

Andy81 wrote:

TomFurman wrote:Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/

Stop posting that kind of shit, Tom. You're hurting dmw's feelings.

perhaps the most interesting thing in that article is the admission by the heartland institute--which is funded by coal and oil-- that warming is occurring and humans are a cause:

the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors.

as for arctic ice, a two-year blip is hardly proof of anything, especially if you consider other evidence of warming:

increase in ocean temperatures
acidification of ocean as co2 dissolves in it
effects of acidification on marine species
melting of antarctic glaciers
earlier arrival of spring documented in various locations around the globe
and more

what will you all do in five - ten years when it's obvious you have been wrong?

dead man walking wrote:

Andy81 wrote:

TomFurman wrote:Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/

Stop posting that kind of shit, Tom. You're hurting dmw's feelings.

perhaps the most interesting thing in that article is the admission by the heartland institute--which is funded by coal and oil-- that warming is occurring and humans are a cause:

the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors.

as for arctic ice, a two-year blip is hardly proof of anything, especially if you consider other evidence of warming:

increase in ocean temperatures
acidification of ocean as co2 dissolves in it
effects of acidification on marine species
melting of antarctic glaciers
earlier arrival of spring documented in various locations around the globe
and more

what will you all do in five - ten years when it's obvious you have been wrong?

dead man walking wrote:
what will you all do in five - ten years when it's obvious you have been wrong?

Protobuilder wrote:I'm not changing my position unless you people tell me how to remove bumper stickers from my hybrid.

dead man walking wrote:

Andy81 wrote:

TomFurman wrote:Nothing but conflict.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... after-all/

Stop posting that kind of shit, Tom. You're hurting dmw's feelings.

perhaps the most interesting thing in that article is the admission by the heartland institute--which is funded by coal and oil-- that warming is occurring and humans are a cause:

the Earth will likely continue to warm modestly as a result of natural and human factors.

as for arctic ice, a two-year blip is hardly proof of anything, especially if you consider other evidence of warming:

increase in ocean temperatures
acidification of ocean as co2 dissolves in it
effects of acidification on marine species
melting of antarctic glaciers
earlier arrival of spring documented in various locations around the globe
and more

what will you all do in five - ten years when it's obvious you have been wrong?

buckethead wrote:

dead man walking wrote:
what will you all do in five - ten years when it's obvious you have been wrong?

It seems like we have been 5 to 10 years from catastrophe since the mid 90s.

Batboy2/75 wrote:What do all of these "end of the world crisis" stories have in common?

Batboy2/75 wrote:What do all of these "end of the world crisis" stories have in common?

dead man walking wrote:

buckethead wrote:

dead man walking wrote:
what will you all do in five - ten years when it's obvious you have been wrong?

It seems like we have been 5 to 10 years from catastrophe since the mid 90s.

we have been 5 to 10 years from catastrophe during my entire life, beginning with the threat of nuclear armageddon in the 50s, followed by disastrous pollution, the end of oil, global warming. the jeremiads are wearying. previously we seem to have made adjustments to avoid the worst. with warming, the possibility exists that the threat could accelerate despite our best efforts (melting of antarctic glaciers and of permafrost offer two potential examples).

we'll see, won't we.

Herv100 wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:What do all of these "end of the world crisis" stories have in common?

I'm going to go with: The proposed solutions to all the problems are more communism, totalitarianism, and overall centralization of control

DrDonkeyLove wrote:

Herv100 wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:What do all of these "end of the world crisis" stories have in common?

I'm going to go with: The proposed solutions to all the problems are more communism, totalitarianism, and overall centralization of control

Exactly. These people are experts. Experts make the right and necessary decisions. Therefore,.......what you said.

Yes, they've been wrong a few (most) times in the past but experts are experts and that is that. To deny that is to deny "science" .