Decreasing snow amounts may be pushing Arctic fox populations in Europe toward extinction.
Image: NOAA
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Conditions in the Arctic are slipping rapidly from bad to worse as the pace of climate change accelerates in that region. That’s the message from an annual environmental assessment of the far North, released on Wednesday.
“Conditions in the Arctic are changing in both expected and sometimes surprising ways,” said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The changes are having an impact far beyond the far North, she added. “What happens in the Arctic doesn’t always stay in the Arctic. We’re seeing Arctic changes that affect weather patterns in the US,” Lubchenco said at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, where the Arctic Report Card was previewed. The online report was written by 114 scientists from 15 countries.
According to the report, the Arctic broke a string of environmental records this past year. The summertime sea ice pack was the smallest ever seen. The amount of Northern Hemisphere snow in June hit the lowest mark on record. Virtually the entire Greenland Ice Cap showed some evidence of surface melting for the first time in observations going back to 1979. And permafrost temperatures on the North Slope of Alaska topped previous highs, said Martin O. Jeffries, a co-editor of the Arctic report and the Arctic science advisor at the Office of Naval Research. “If we’re not there already, we’re surely on the verge of seeing a new Arctic,” he said.
The widespread reduction in snow and ice cover in summertime has darkened the ocean surface and land in the Arctic, allowing it to absorb more sunlight, which leads to enhanced warming. “The Arctic is one of Earth’s mirrors and that mirror is breaking,” said Donald Perovich, an Arctic researcher at Dartmouth College, who participated in the report.
The darkening of the surface creates a positive feedback that explains why the Arctic is warming twice as quickly as lower latitudes, said Jeffries. “This is what we call the Arctic amplification of global warming, a phenomenon that was predicted 30 years ago, which we’re now seeing happening in a significant way.”
The changes are putting stress on some creatures, including Arctic foxes in Scandinavia and nearby regions. The European population has crashed in recent years; and with only 200 individuals left, it is in danger of extinction, according to the report, which blames disruptions in the population of rodents. Lemming numbers have dropped in some regions, and scientists have suggested that reduced snow cover may be implicated, said Jeffries.
The Arctic assessment comes out a week after a report that documented accelerated melting of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
This article is reproduced with permission from the magazine Nature. The article was first published on December 5, 2012.
See what we're tweeting about
64 Comments
Add CommentReleased in 2012 by Envoronment Canada...polar bear numbers at record high. The exact OPPOSITE of the unfounded speculation of global warming groupies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell, at least these Alarmists
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdidn't paint Mankind's
0.28% of total GreenHouse Gases emitted
as "THE cause."
As long as we keep
focusing gvmt. policy
against Man and CO2,
we will never manage to
look at the Arctic's reality:
Methane Seeps from 35MILLION years ago, are snow-balling, geometrically;
and Man didn't do it,
not even ACCIDENTALLY!
(We may not even bother to STUDY it,
not with all this CAGW nonsense
diverting research funds!)
From "Wikipedia" on METHANE:
"It has a high global warming potential:
72 times that of carbon dioxide over 20 years,
and 25 times over 100 years,[32]
and the levels are rising.
Recent research suggests that the Earth's OCEANS are a potentially important NEW source of ARCTIC methane.[33]"
Only "NEW" if you haven't studied them?
“More Than 150,000 Methane Seeps Appear as Arctic Ice Retreats”
By Lauren Morello and ClimateWire,
and found on “Scientific American”
(Not that they weren't Seeping
before "discovery" just as
the Caribbean Islands were there
before Columbus' "discovery"!)
Man COULD do something
to PURPOSEFULLY alleviate
this TRULY ALARMING
natural manifestation, however.
Methane is what makes NatGas
such a low-emission, efficient alternative
to coal-fired electricity generation;
something which the US has ALREADY used
to reduce CO2 emissions 20% to 1992 levels
--According to the official 8/12 EIA report!--
while adding 25% to population/demand
during the same period!
These Arctic Seeps are shallow, low-hanging fruit.
IF we harvest/liquify/store
these clean-burning Natural Gases,
we may save "two birds with one pass",
trapping poisons, (where we may),
instead of letting them, too, slowly Seep,
poisoning/warming the atmosphere...
as they HAVE for the last 35 M years.
Elegant, isn't it?
Too many Alarmists argue
the ONLY thing we can do is
"try to Change the Climate,"
while the those who understand
the fallacy of that approach
instead ACKNOWLEDGE…
"WE PROBABLY CAN’T DO THAT,"
but instead CAN try to
control the calamities of
these inevitable, inexorable changes,
through preparedness.
I have suggested a middle path.
The able, capable Scientist's
who're refining the fracking process
could surely devise a means
to withdraw the low-hanging fruit/methane,
(the oil will wait),
in a way that could be
routinely harvested meanwhile,
capturing these heinous GHG's
to be used as FUEL to reduce
electricity generation "costs",
including emissions.
RWay Ford, quite the opposite of you implication re methane in the arctic, it has been studied for some time now. Of course there have been seeps there, just as in most mid-depth ocean floor areas, but as the warming of the arctic has accelerated over the past four decades so has the release of methane, alarmingly so. No one says that CO2 is the only gas involved in climatic change; methane has long been recognized as a more potent greenhouse gas. But there are at least two factors that lead to focus on CO2: First is the time in residence of methane vs CO2. Second is the fact that if not for warming causing increased release of methane the seeps in the arctic would remain non threatening (of course all those ruminates we eat don’t help, yes cow farts are a problem, no matter how much denial through levity.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVendicar Decarian, well stated sir. Sciproofreader is excellent at the cherry picking game. Either that, or just plain derisive statements with little to context or basis. The sad fact is the polar bear as we know it is probably already extinct. We know that they have adapted before, but never because another species altered the climate at such a rate as to overcome evolution.
We are the only species that can adapt at will, fortunantly many are coming to realize our responsibility to do so. The climate has already been changed, and will take a period longer than one human lifespan to hopefully recover. This not sufficient reason to allow tribal and industrial interests to prevent positive action.
When you burn methane, you release CO2, so capturing the methane to burn it does not eliminate it's greenhouse activity, only spreads it out.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Scienceproofreader, the last number of years have brought mild winters to my part of Canada. AGW promoters have claimed that many people would be negatively affected by climate change. Yet I haven't been. I hate shoveling snow. Therefore everything scientists say about anything must be wrong. It doesn't matter if the science is done differently or if my personal criteria for what is good or bad about my local environment has anything to do with the issue at hand. Nothing else matters except that I have found one thing that I believe differs from what science predicted. So you and I are alike. Both of us are the only people in the world who get to decide what is valid science and what is inconvenient, and I’m not sure about you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee the problem with being an idiot is that you are the last to know. Look up the Dunning-Kruger Effect. If you have a new hypothesis about what is going on, please get a grant, I hear the Koch bros. are handing out tonnes of money for that kind of "science", and present your findings here. Until then, what do you think you have to contribute to a discussion of which you are clearly biased, ignorant and possess none the intellectual skills to understand? Your opinion is worth less than I paid for it. You’re a troll. And that is the best you have to offer.
RSchmidt: FYI... Environment Canada this week: Colder than average winter predicted for most of Canada. 'nuff said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, 'parts' of Canada have had milder than average winteres and 'parts' of Canada have had colder than average winters. How would one expect otherwise?
colder than average winter...polar bear numbers higher than ever....we won't hear this on Scientific Unamerican.
@RWay Ford, please look up Dunning-Kruger. Or perhaps explain why your keen insights into the science of climate are being posted to a comment section rather than a science paper. I'll give you a hint, because you are delusional about your own understanding of the problem and, as a result, are unaware that you have no idea what you are talking about. But thanks for taking the time to share your ignorance with the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisalso, it is much easier to count bears on land than on ice so a decrease in arctic ice can lead to higher counts. What's more is the count of cubs is dramatically lower than they should be for a healthy population so the question becomes, if we are actually seeing a growth in population then were are the cubs?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut scienceliar has used this in the past and been pointed to the same issues. He isn't posting it because he believes it, he is posting it because it agrees with his world view. If the same scientist revoked this paper scienceliar would continue to post it. Again, this goes to character. The only thing the deniers have proven after years of trolling sciam is their own low moral character. I would really like one, just one, denier to come here and present a peer reviewed paper that provided evidence that was inconsistent with AGW. Instead we get liars, frauds and the occasional village id10t.
Re the silly comment on snow cover. Snow is not ice. Warmer temperatures bring increase snow...not a decrease. The Arctic is largely a desert. the largest snowfalls in North America are in California, Colorado, etc....not where it is coldest. Chicago will get more snow than anywhere in Canada 2 thousand kms further north.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this60% of the world's polar bears live in Canada from subarctic to the Arctic. These numbers are at a record high in 2012.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscjoyce,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"it has been studied for some time now";
no citations?
No credibility.
Name any studies/funding/authors,
focused on the ACCELERATION of
Methane Seeps IN THE ARCTIC.
You've no more hope of
disproving geometric Arctic Methane acceleration (ACCELERATING FOR 35 MILLION YEARS!)
as being the LOGICAL CAUSE OF ACCELERATED WARMING
than you have of proving the
Egg preceded the Chicken.
Nor do you state
what you BELIEVE is
the "residence" of methane,
or why/who/how convinced.
"Wikipedia" made it quite clear.
Whereas, CO2 is
the very AIR any photosynthesizing
Botanical Earthling needs to survive...
and the more, the merrier,
(a Tropical Rain Forest told me so
as it belched oxygen in my face;-)
And, finally, your tautology knows no bounds,
(as you round first again, ignoring all other bases):
"the FACT that if not for warming causing increased release of methane the seeps in the arctic would remain non threatening..."
The methane HAS been leaking for 35 million years
and right through many Interglacial (melting) Eras,
including the one we've been enjoying
for the last 11,400 years.
"Because you said so"
is not a FACT, but supposition
and no better than mine,
which is "the Methane Seeped before
and STILL is (theoretically)
accelerating geometrically."
THAT makes perfect, LOGICAL sense.
"Discovery" speaks to the
short-coming of Man's Science,
not Nature's nature.
Especially once you've
come to terms with the understanding:
Mankind's entire GHG contribution =
just 0.28% of Earth's total!
Ah, I see you danced
right 'round the middle path.
Too bad.
But, thanks for playing.
Enjoy your lovely door prize
and be sure to play along at home!
Mssr. Dubay,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen we allow Arctic Natural Gas Seeps
to continue as they have for 35 million years,
well, you see the reported results.
"Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting PRIMARILY of methane, with other hydrocarbons, CARBON DIOXIDE, nitrogen and hydrogen sulfide.[1]
Natural gas is an important energy source to provide heating and electricity.
It is also used as fuel for vehicles and as a chemical feedstock in the manufacture of plastics and other commercially important organic chemicals"
According to "Wikipedia", again,
(as cited above), but on "Gas Engines":
"Since natural gas (methane) has long been a clean, economical, and readily available fuel, many industrial engines are either designed or modified to use gas, as distinguished FROM GASOLINE.
Although the CARBON EMISSION FOOTPRINT DOES NOT DIFFER SIGNIFICANTLY, their operation produces LESS COMPLEX-HYDROCARBON POLLUTION, and the engines have fewer internal problems."
So, we can continue to allow
the Arctic Seeps to get away with
spewing both CO2 AND
the MUCH MORE DANGEROUS CH4,
or we can actually DO SOMETHING.
Comprenez-vous?
it is obvious that there is extra heat in the environ . there is one source of heat that has not been calibrated for effect - the heat generated by the - haarp machines - of the major countries of the world . i know of only two countries that have them , usa and russia . they are akin to very huge microwave machines and the effects are the same . altho the government has put out statements there does seem to be some softselling of their effect . might be a good idea to look into for a fuller understanding of the climate change phenomenon .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Colder than average winter predicted for most of Canada. 'nuff said." you are right, nuff said. First of all, this is a lie, see: (http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/saisons/image_e.html?img=sfe1t_s).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may be colder than last year but last year was one of the warmest on record. AGW doesn't predict that every year will be warmer than the last. But that is something you only have to explain to people who knows nothing about climate.
What's more, this is a prediction. You deniers like to rant about the climate scientists use of models to predict climate change yet as soon as ONE prediction is made in what you perceive to be your favour you jump on the band wagon and claim victory. You must do fact checking for the republican party.
"How would one expect otherwise?" well that is a good question of which you seem to have no grasp. If there was warming I would expect the overall trend to be higher temperatures. If it was cooling I would expect the overall trend to be lower temperatures. And if I were an idiot I would expect that warming meant that every day, everywhere, it would be hotter than the day before.
"we won't hear this on Scientific Unamerican", can't even take them time to look-up your own lies, please see: (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2012/05/10/new-polar-bear-counting-method-creates-confusion/) took two seconds to find that.
So, based on what you have said on this and other posts there seems to be three main possibilities here; you are a kid that just cracked open his first science textbook and think you now know it all now. If that is the case then please actually read the textbook and save your opinions until the end. The other possibility is that you are intellectually challenged. If that is the case then; good job buddy you are doing swell. You keep on thinking! But if you are independently living (does not mean having your own room in your parent's basement) with the right to vote then the way I would sum this up; you are a proven liar, a hypocrite, fundamentally irrational, scientifically illiterate and intellectually lazy. You were right, nuff said. I look forward to reading more of your brilliant insights.
@"Re the silly comment on snow cover... Warmer temperatures bring increase snow...not a decrease" wow you got me there. I guess that explains why the deepest snow is found around the equator. Increasing temperatures do bring a increase of snow, until they start going above freezing. And that is what we had last year. In the past it was rare that there would be more than three thaws a winter, now we are getting as many as 30. That means our roads and other infrastructure are getting 10 years worth of expansion and contraction in a single year. You just don't seem to get it. You don't sound clever. You don't appear to be a guy who has it figured out. You appear to be someone completely out of touch with his own intellectual limitations. Kind of sad and pathetic, if it weren't so annoying.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHerr Schmidt,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason I don't
blanket the Comment Section
with my raw opinions
--As you HAVE--
is because I have no delusions
about my intelligence
re: "Climate science".
I always bring a vetted source,
or SOME SOURCE, --unlike you;
someone with credentials--
to support what I'm trying to
share/propose with other of the unwashed masses.
(I didn't have to in this case;
but, then, YOU left that door open ;-)
It is my mission
to ignite faith in the Faithless
AND to seed doubt in the Faithful...
Confusion, whether
in the face of God or
Einstein's Unifying Force,
--Take your pick; "still a rose!"--
is a sign of true mental health!
Basically, everything we "know" is wrong:
Somewhat wrong, most of the time;
mostly wrong, some of the time;
half-wrong, half the time; or, like a broken clock,
absolutely right for 2 hypothetical milliseconds a day…
for the wrong reasons!
Except for Herr Schmidt.
He has come to know more and more
about less and less,
until finally, he knows
everything there is to know
about nothing at all.
And every aromatic whiff
from his buttocks is
God's Own Holy Truth;
His blessing upon us all!
No,you mein herr:
Tend to overestimate your own level of understanding;
fail to recognize genuine understanding in others; AND
utterly fail to recognize the EXTREMITY
of your INADEQUACY.
(You crack me up, yer nibs!
It's been a hoot rolling you ;-)
@Herr Schmidt, is that some kind of bigoted comment? I’m Canadian, so are my parents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I have no delusions about my intelligence" really? So if you had delusions about your intelligence, how would you know? Wouldn't you think you had no delusions?
"Basically, everything we "know" is wrong" really? 1+1=2 is wrong? A triangle has 3 sides is wrong. The number of protons in hydrogen is wrong? Perhaps you were using the royal "we", then that makes sense.
"I always bring a vetted source, or SOME SOURCE, --unlike you;" I think I provided links to actual science, the one scienceliar misrepresented. I don't see you providing anything other than B.S.
"It is my mission to ignite faith in the Faithless AND to seed doubt in the Faithful" well sir you are in the wrong place. Science is not based on faith, it is based on evidence. The reason we do science is not because we have doubt but because we have ignorance. There is always doubt even when we have a high level of confidence. The moment we have faith is the moment we need to start over and challenge our assumptions.
"Confusion...is a sign of true mental health" is that what the doctors are telling you? Well keep believing and maybe someday they will let you out.
"Tend to overestimate your own level of understanding;" don't think I was the one telling the scientists they are all wrong and I was right. In fact I didn’t offer any of my own opinions other than on the mental capacity of you and scienceliar but I acknowledge that I am not a mental health expert so don’t go sticking an ice-pick up your nose because of what I said.
"AND utterly fail to recognize the EXTREMITY of your INADEQUACY" don't believe everything my girlfriend says! She's just mad because I'm easier to please...and since when does the inadequacy of my extremities have anything to do with climate?
"he knows everything there is to know about nothing at all." I suspect we all do, kinda, even scienceliar. Knowing everything about nothing seems pretty simple. On the other hand you seem to know nothing about a great many things, especially the things you take the time to write about on sciam. Kind of strange. One would think that if it was important to you, you would take the time to understand it.
“It's been a hoot rolling you”, I feel so rolled! How can I hold my head up after being rolled so thoroughly? I guess I’ll just have to roll with it.
The issue of polar bear numbers was covered :http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/extinction-countdown/2012/05/10/new-polar-bear-counting-method-creates-confusion/#comment-3294
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is well worth reading the posts as well as the article.
Arctic Ice extent has recovered at the fastest rate on record & now exceeds the area covered at the same time last year. A huge storm in the Arctic Ocean drove ice out of the area causing the record low extent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYet another abuser on this site. A sure sign of weakness of mind & argument.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those of you interested in the science rather than Carlyle's cherry picking;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Summary:
"For the Arctic as a whole, ice growth for November was faster than average. However, the Kara and Barents seas remained largely ice free, contributing to above-average air temperatures in these regions."
"November average sea ice extent was 9.93 million square kilometers (3.83 million square miles). This is 1.38 million square kilometers (533,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for the month and is the third lowest November extent in the satellite record."
"By the end of the month, the central Arctic Ocean had almost completely frozen over. However, the Barents and Kara seas remained largely ice free. Extent remained below normal in the Baffin Bay and Hudson Bay, but ice extent in the Bering Sea by the end of the month was greater than average, continuing a pattern seen in recent years. Extent in the Bering Sea was at record high levels last winter."
"Average sea ice extent for November 2012 was the third lowest in the satellite record. This marks only the third year in the satellite record that November extent was below 10 million square kilometers (3.86 million square miles). Through 2012, the linear rate of decline for November Arctic ice extent is -4.8% per decade relative to the 1979 to 2000 average."
"November air temperatures at the 925 hPa level (approximately 3,000 feet) were above average over most of the Arctic Ocean. Notably, temperatures in the Barents and Kara seas were up to 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than average. This reflects in part the lingering open water in the regions, allowing strong upward transfers of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. Unusually strong winds from the south contributed to the warmth and also helped keep the region ice free."
And perhaps more importantly, sea ice concentration;
"In addition to the decline in sea ice extent, a two-dimensional measure of the ice cover, the ice cover has grown thinner and less resistant to summer melt. Recent data on the age of sea ice, which scientists use to estimate the thickness of the ice cover, shows that the youngest, thinnest ice, which has survived only one or two melt seasons, now makes up the large majority of the ice cover."
So again, don't believe denier cherry picking, look at the facts.
"A sure sign of weakness of mind & argument." a sure sign of weakness of mind & argument is someone who lies and misrepresents the facts in order to advance their ideology. Why lie if you feel justified in your beliefs? Why spin the facts if the facts are in your favor? What kind of person lies about something that threatens most people on the planet. Psychopathic climate deniers as we have clearly seen. Thanks for you contribution to the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSmallest ever seen is quite a stretch seeing as how the earth itself is 4.5 billion years old? Guess the scientist writing this is more of an activist and not a scientist Or he just needs a little more grant money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHe said; I would really like one, just one, denier to come here and present a peer reviewed paper that provided evidence that was inconsistent with AGW!
There are several hundred of these papers already in circulation, which one is he wanting to scoff at?
We did a little investigating of our own in October and found that we are experiencing record sea ice in the Antarctic the likes of which has never been seen before!
@Jerryhamilt, "There are several hundred of these papers already in circulation, which one is he wanting to scoff at?" so many that you ran out of space to list them. Or perhaps that's just standard B.S. from the denier catalog of lies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We did a little investigating of our own in October and found that we are experiencing record sea ice in the Antarctic the likes of which has never been seen before!" LOL. Just to remind you because you wrote it a few seconds ago. "quite a stretch seeing as how the earth itself is 4.5 billion years old"
The temps at the Antarctic have not gone up high enough yet to see the same phenomenon we are seeing in the artic. It is a different place with different conditions. But I guess if you are a simpleton, you can't help but think in simple terms.
http://nsidc.org/icelights/2012/01/11/sea-ice-down-under-antarctic-ice-and-climate/
Of course you would have know this from your juggernaut of climate science research covering the entire month of October, that is unless you stopped looking the second you found something you liked.
Thanks for proving yet again the character of the pathological denier.
Scienceproofreader sounds like geojellyroll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPlease see my rebuttal to Ford's BS regarding a similar article: He is full of shit and, basically, incompetent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative#comments
He may be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are not "seveal hundred" peer reviewed papers in circulation. Anyone who refers to the earth being 4.5 billion years of age (which it is) in this context is not only naive, but may be a troll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless of the Polar Bear populations, why do you think that Canada could be representative of global temp's?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI smell cherry-pick, and the scent is worse than a used diaper.
Such unsophisticated abuse. I see three coprolites here. Possibly all from the same orifice.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, you are so clever! And yet that's the best you've got. Well, thanks for playing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is repeatedly ignored is Antarctica. Sea Ice extent has been growing for thirty years. Now & then we see extreme reports about the Antarctic Ice Sheet melting. The mechanism that drives such melting is something of a mystery or perhaps the melting is mythical. The hottest temperature ever recoded was 58.3F back in 1974. The coldest temperature ever recorded on Earth was -128.6F in 1983.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSnow rarely melts. Only comparatively small costal tundra areas have a short summer with temperatures above freezing point.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Antarctica
"I would really like one, just one, denier to come here and present a peer reviewed paper that provided evidence that was inconsistent with AGW."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell gee, I guess you might find a few, out of 1100 listed here:
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/temperate-facts/co2-and-gw-primers/peer-reviewed-studies
Of course, not all above papers are on point, but enough for illustration.
Here is a few from 1997 that are interesting:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id
Due to ideological concerns RSchmidt has never looked for papers contradicting his ideology, so is surprised, when many are found. Try obtaining your references outside of the advocacy of SkS, and other propaganda sites. Investigation and research requires more than one source. GK
@Carlyle, the only one ignoring it is you. I have already addressed the Antarctica issue and provided a link to the science. Once again we see denier confirmation bias in action. It doesn't matter how much data supports the AGW hypothesis all the you care about is finding something, no matter how poorly understood, that appears to run contrary AGW. And that will be all that it takes to confirm your bias that AGW is impossible. Pull your head out of you backside. AGW does not mean that everywhere, everyday, the temperature will be warmer than the last. We are talking about trends on a global scale; hence the G in AGW. Antarctica is not the Arctic. There are different dynamics at play. Antarctica is still too cold for us to see the same phenomenon we see in the Arctic. But you would know that if you made an honest attempt to understand the science. One can only conclude that you are some mindless shill whose only objective is to sow the seeds of fear, uncertainty and doubt for your masters. And for that you are being judged as nothing more than a troll.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnvironmnet Canada: Arctic polar bear populations at record high.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEnvironmnet Canada:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisColder than average tempereatures predicted for Arctic and Western Canada for winter of 2013.
Wow, that is some cherry picking. But you really need to read your own references. Many of the papers you cited or that were cited in your links actually support AGW, they just differ in estimates and some conclusions. Here is an example;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Schwartz’s results would imply two important things. First, that the impact of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will be much smaller than most estimates; second, that almost all of the warming due to the greenhouse gases we’ve put in the atmosphere so far has already been felt, so there’s almost no warming “in the pipeline” due to greenhouse gases already in the air. Both ideas contradict the consensus view of climate scientists, and both ideas give global-warming skeptics a warm fuzzy feeling (but not too warm).
"Despite the celebratory reaction from the denialist blogosphere (and U.S. Senator James Inhofe), this is not a “denialist” paper. Schwartz is a highly respected researcher (deservedly so) in atmospheric physics, mainly working on aerosols. He doesn’t pretend to smite global-warming theories with a single blow, he simply explores one way to estimate climate sensitivity and reports his results. He seems quite aware of many of the caveats inherent in his method, and invites further study, saying in the “conclusions” section:"
So what you provided was what we call a smoke screen. You threw up a bunch of reference, of which yourself haven't read and you hoped no one else would take the time to review them.
So not only are you ignorant of climate science, you are ignorant about your own claims against climate science. You know nothing is an overstatement. You are experiencing the Dunning-Kruger Effect. The challenge I made, that the scientific community makes, was very simple. Show me ONE paper, just one that is peer reviewed which concludes that AGW is not happening. That doesn't mean an opinion piece. That doesn't mean a bunch of links from the 90's. That doesn't mean a paper that draws different conclusions but is still consistent with climate change. And it doesn't mean a paper that has been soundly rebutted years ago. HOW DIFFICULT CAN THAT BE! You deniers are so adamant that you are right! There must be thousands of papers that support your claim. There are certainly thousands that support AGW proponents. But I guess that is irrelevant to a mindless right wing fanatic with an agenda.
@Scienceproofreader, parroting B.S. that has already been dealt with just shows that you are an idiot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNorthern and Aboriginal Affairs (Canada)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHigh arctic and Banks Island caribou populations appear to be stable or slowly increasing.
Environment Canada:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTemperatures for Western Arctic (Nunavit) 1.1 degrees colder than average for November, 2012. Temperatures for Western Arctic (NWTs).4 degree colder than average.
Another sign that you are a scientifically illiterate denier, you don't know the difference between climate and weather.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo all the evidence that contradicts your point of view is nothing? You remind me of the Monty Python character.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=AU&hl=en-GB&v=zKhEw7nD9C4
.
In this context your argument of, "Just because my point of view is different than others' and, therefore, should be given equal credibility" is rediculous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact is, it is your point of view, not a point of reality. You sound like a niave church-person, arguing against geologic record (insert Penrod).
I too like to go against the grain in some aspects of my life; it keeps things interesting, and allows me to experience things that others with my background may have not. When faced with empirical evidence, though, I tend to believe those who have spent their lives ascertaining it.
There's nothing we can do to slow, stop or reverse AGW/climate change, short of mass-deindustrialization and/or suicide. This fact has been obvious from the start. As has been said many times now, you AGW whiners need to set an example and get off the grid and lose your cars. Maybe some of you can be truly noble and off yourselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@N a g n o s t i c, perhaps you can show us the science you did to come up with that assertion? Or are you just another liar? Getting board with you low lifes who know nothing about the issues but insist that you have it all figured out. If you can't produce the research then please cram it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat evidence!? I've asked for it by you deniers can't seem to find it. This is science. The conversation would be over if you would just validate your hypothesis. But you haven't done that. Instead you come here and lie. The same boring lies over and over again. Please explain that to us. What kind of person are you? What kind of low life intentionally tries to harm people for his own profit?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNagnostic: " As has been said many times now, you AGW whiners need to set an example and get off the grid and lose your cars. Maybe some of you can be truly noble and off yourselves."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's a bit harsh but still funny. Unfortunately most of them are just paper groupies. Flavor of the month and then they'll be off on their next great exploit such as how we are all going to die of AIDs (wait, that one's been done).
Odd how the climate change is always somewhere else. Our shore still has the same whale boat moarings from 90 years ago. Just returned from Maui and no sea level rise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGW groupie law: the level of shrill predictions escalates as more people refuse to drink the purple Kool-ade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn contrast
'the Economist' in their latest 'Megachange' publication (20l2)
There has never been a lower per capita rate of death from disease, starvation or natural disasters. Populations in developing countries will continue to grow. Nigeria will be the 3rd most populous country by 2040 and Tanzania the 5th.
Tell me what would convince you that much of the AGW hype is false & that the resultant predictions have failed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsolutely nothing will shake idealogues or religious fanatics. Anyone who tries gets abuse for their trouble. Tell me what investigation you have done for yourself that is not simply regurgitating pap from an AGW site like Sceptical science. I put up a post the other day about the obvious falts in their 97% survey claim. Tell me where it was wrong instead of shooting your mouth off about the source of the information.
How about a global trend of reducing temperatures? How about an increase in Ice mass in the Arctic (ice extent has nothing to do with ice mass) and the majority of the world's glaciers. How about instead of warmer ecosystems expanding away from the equator they contract towards it? How about decreasing or stable pH in the oceans? How about decreasing or stable temperatures in the deep ocean? This isn't about one piece of evidence, this is about mountains of evidence that can only be explained by the AGW hypothesis. You, on the other hand are cherry picking. Please look up confirmation bias. You think it is sufficient to explain away one piece of evidence or even to show it to be somewhat inaccurate and you've won. That's not how science works. For your hypothesis to supersede AGW it has it explain ALL the phenomenon we are seeing more elegantly and more completely. Instead we get lists of links to old science and opinion pieces that don't even agree with each other and with many actually supporting AGW with just a few different conclusions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat investigation have I done? Other rather reading the science I have done none. But I am not the one telling the scientists they are all wrong.
You take exception to the fact that I am attacking you. I am a systems person, I try to get to the root of the problem. The science is clear. There is no one in the climate science community that will claim that AGW is a fraud. The only people championing the denier cause are people with a political or financial motive. So the issue here isn't that you and your denier friends are interpreting the data in ways that allow you to come to a different conclusion, because none of you are actually looking at the data. The issue is that you and the other deniers are deliberately perpetrating fraud in order to advance your ideology. The issue isn't science, it is character. And so that is what I am addressing.
Where in any of your claims is the proof that AGW is to blame? Also you totally reject evidence that despite the rise in CO2, the rate of warming has slowed to long term average. Many of your claims are based on alarmist & scientifically challenged assertions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you are so genuinely concerned that mankind is to blame, why are you not advocating measures to cope with change as any rational person must know man can not control the earth’s climate? Why are you not advocating expanding the use of nuclear power or do you consider that global warming is not so serious that you must reconsider the irrational opposition to it?
The ph of the sea is increasing because of CO2 absorption. I wonder whether the ph of the cranial fluid of climate change sceptics should be researched. Perhaps there is a correlation with their inability to objectively reason. We needn't worry because above a certain ph, they will cease to think at all. Meanwhile we must suffer their acid utterances - but not for much longer; a mixed blessing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMore garbage. Between 1751 and 1994 surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14,[4] representing an increase of almost 30% in H+ ion concentration in the world's oceans. A fluid is not acidic until the scale is minus 0.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat does it. As soon as the chaos of December is done, I'm sending a letter to the editor with some choice suggestions for removing the comments threads from this site. This is getting ridiculous. Hardly a single article on any significant subject goes up anywhere (outside of Tet Zoo and Extinction Countdown, which are well-policed) without attracting hordes of scientifically illiterate trolls to spam it. Why do the editors do nothing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe don't seem to even know what we think we know:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee latest article on Dr Curry's site concerning three new papers on stratospheric temperature uncertainty.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/12/09/stratospheric-uncertainty/#more-10554
I accept science. It is pseudo science that I have a problem with.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen by definition you should not be an AGW denier, because AGW denialism is probably the most widely-belieed pseudoscientific belief, right above UFOs and homeopathic "medicine". And damn it, I need to stop wasting my time by doing this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBird, take a break and get some fresh air. Seriously, walk away from the screen, at least for a while. Remember, not one single thing you say on here is ever going to change anyone's mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLater, bud.
Carlyle said, "Also you totally reject evidence that despite the rise in CO2, the rate of warming has slowed to long term average."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you claiming there are no other factors effecting climate change besides CO2? Are you confident that if CO2 levels had remained constant, "the rate of warming" would still have "slowed?" Is it possible the there could have been global cooling (if CO2 levels had remained constant)?
It's amazing some people do not recognize their own circular arguments: OTHER FACTORS are more significant to climate change than CO2, but if climate change is not closely correlated with CO2, no OTHER FACTORS can be the cause.
Cramer, are you suggesting we are entering another ice age of some sort and that increased CO2 is preventing cooling? If so, we need to increase our CO2 output so we can stay warm. Or is that a circular argument of yours?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPostman1,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you suggesting that if global temperatures decline for a few years that means we are entering an ice age?
"Потемнению поверхности создает положительную связь,которая объясняет,почему в Арктике потепление в два раза быстрее низких широтах"."Положительную связь" создает не только "потемнение поверхности" но и деформация земной коры и изменение формы Земли (смотрите изменение формы Земли,картинки) из-за изменения процессов в ядре Земли.Глобальное изменение климата происходит из-за изменения формы Земли.От формы Земли зависит альбедо Земли,от альбедо климат Земли а антропогенный фактор и увеличение количества CO2 и метана в в атмосфере Земли ускорители глобального изменения климата.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Methane Seeps from 35MILLION years ago, are snow-balling, geometrically;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand Man didn't do it,
not even ACCIDENTALLY!"
This is the tipping point. The methane sequestered in the Azolla Event a few dozen million years ago is being released due to the Arctic thaw. Obviously this occurred because of industrial civilization and overpopulation (or is the most peculiar of coincidences, once greenhouse gas effects are known since the XIX century).
However, even if it was not our ‘fault’ and a natural phenomenon, we would still have to deal with it. As it is, it is an invitation to re-think our economy and the way we get things done, to evolve technologically rapidly, as we are so fond of doing when there is a threat at hand. Even if everything was fine, we would still have to develop a post-oil economy in a few decades, so anticipating it to save some oil reserves for our descendants would be just plain good sense. Corporations do not plan ahead; the ‘fast buck’ is killing the world.
I am optimistic Sandy will work as a wake-up call and as a ‘climatic Pearl Harbor’, whereby America at long last gets off her fat rear end and joins Europe in a battle to save civilization… yet again.