Antarctic ice loss accelerating

A group of scientists said recently that it's a good thing there is a hole in the ozone over the antarctic promoting low temerpature circular winds. If and when the hole in the ozone repairs itself, it could accelerate the melting.

The problem with the right wing is they know everything so they never bother to read anything unless it supports what they already know.

The Ozone hole from a source the right can trust, a captured agency: [url=http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/hole/whyant.html]http://www.epa.gov/ozo...

Finally, weather and climate change are not the same thing. It is quite possible to have a global warming contributing to climate change and still have a nasty winter.

There are lots of books of available on the subject but I am sure you will be able to find something sooner or later from David Frum to reinforce what you already know.

[ 18 January 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

nothing sad about it:
but the goofy MSM confusion of "weather" and "climate" is sad, intellectually.

as in: very hot summer this year!
ERGO, 500-year settled climate patterns must be changing before our very eyes!!! [img]eek.gif" border="0[/img]

uh, no.

the Danish link, very short bit:
[url=http://www.cphpost.dk/get/105114.html]http://www.cphpost.dk/get/105114.h...

by all accounts, between roughly the years 900 and 1400, the climate of Greenland changed enormously, so much that this "greenland" was no longer green by the late Middle Ages

Why this happened, no explanation everyone can accept; but one thing certain, man-made activities had nothing or virtually nothing to do with them, certainly no Rhine-Ruhr to blame

a lot of "green" activists, oddly, have a very human-centric view of things;
why can't Nature act on its own and change climates in ways we don't really understand, much less control ?

Like I said, the right wing doesn't read unless whatever is written supports their preconceived notions or biases.

All that nonsense being bombarded about in the right wind echo chambers have already been thoroughly debunked:

quote:

---

MYTH #2: Regional proxy evidence of warm or anomalous (wet or dry) conditions in past centuries contradicts the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric mean warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context.

Such claims reflect a lack of awareness of the distinction between regional and large-scale climate change. Similar such claims were recently made in two articles by astronomer Willie Soon and co-authors (Soon and Baliunas, 2003; Soon et al, 2003). These claims were subsequently rebutted by a group of more than a dozen leading climate scientists in an article in the journal "Eos" of the American Geophysical Union (Mann et al, ‘Eos‘, 2003). The rebuttal raised, among other points, the following two key points:

(1) In drawing conclusions regarding past regional temperature changes from proxy records, it is essential to assess proxy data for actual sensitivity to past temperature variability. In some cases (Soon and Baliunas, 2003, Soon et al, 2003) a global 'warm anomaly' has been defined for any period during which various regions appear to indicate climate anomalies that can be classified as being either 'warm', 'wet', or 'dry' relative to '20th century' conditions. Such a criterion could be used to define any period of climate as 'warm' or 'cold', and thus cannot meaningfully characterize past large-scale surface temperature changes.

(2) It is essential to distinguish (e.g. by compositing or otherwise assimilating different proxy information in a consistent manner—e.g., Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998, 1999; Briffa et al., 2001) between regional temperature changes and changes in global or hemispheric mean temperature. Specific periods of cold and warmth differ from region to region over the globe (see Jones and Mann, 2004), as changes in atmospheric circulation over time exhibit a wave-like character, ensuring that certain regions tend to warm (due, for example, to a southerly flow in the Northern Hemisphere winter mid-latitudes) when other regions cool (due to the corresponding northerly flow that must occur elsewhere). Truly representative estimates of global or hemispheric average temperature must therefore average temperature changes over a sufficiently large number of distinct regions to average out such offsetting regional changes. The specification of a warm period, therefore requires that warm anomalies in different regions should be truly synchronous and not merely required to occur within a very broad interval in time, such as AD 800-1300 (as in Soon et al, 2003; Soon and Baliunas, 2003).

---

[url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11#myth2]http://www.realclimate.o...

Linked from that site:
[url=http://iri.columbia.edu/~goddard/EESC_W4400/CC/jones_mann_2004.pdf]http:...

To be succinct for Geneva, regional climate variations are not quite the same as a planetary event.

Terrific. So now you're off for the rest of the day. Come back tomorrow and I will tell you something else about the right wing.

quote:

---

Like I said, the right wing doesn't read unless whatever is written supports their preconceived notions or biases.

---

It's still fun to have their presence on forums though [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img] Hopefully lets others see how narrowminded and selective you need to be to think like a Geneva does.

Timmah, so pretty much you've stated that the broad brush is correct then? [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

I think orthodoxy on either side is a mistake. It is important to always keep an open mind.

The problem with the right wing echo chamber is that it refuses to separate the wheat from the chafe and the choir sings from both sides of the orchestra acknowledging and rejecting the science depending on how it fits with the whacky argumeny of the moment.

The echo chamber has been bouncing around canards so old and so debunked as to be downright embarrassing. What's more, the right wing climate deniers are now the modern day luddites being left behind.

While the rest of the world is recognizing the issues and beginning to invest in new technologies and beginning to address issues of consumption and sustainability, the right is locked in a time warp unable to see beyond their own immediate and selfish needs and toward a better future.

They are the wet blankets the rest of us must throw off for a sustainable and prosperous new world.

I don't know if Lyndon Larouche could be categorized as a real leftwinger, but he's down on what he refers to as global warming Malthusians. He says global warming fits with population reduction imperialism emanating from Britain for many years.

And then there is Canada's Michel Chossudovsky who says that despite superpowers signing a treaty in the last century banning possible future use of weather warfare, he and others think that the environment is now being used as a weapon of mass destruction.

The aim of all world empires of history was to maintain division among babarian hordes, divide and conquer, and never allow resource-rich colonies to become very prosperous in relation to the imperial master nations. Some very poor but resource-rich nations have had extremely bad luck with economic warfare waged on them through Washington consensus in the 1990's. And we know that a certain country has refused to agree to a world criminal court and have now made nuclear first-strike a legal possibility that did not exist during the cold war. It is a vicious empire that has waged conventional, chemical, and biological warfare on small countries populated by large numbers of poor people in the past. I think it's a possibility.

Sorry but there is no mountain of evidence for AGW. Warming has been observed while CO2 increased and mainstream scientists saw this (CO2) as a cause of warming. Now there is a shit load of grant money to be had, as long as you go along with the establishment. e.g. has Gore given away any dough lately?

All sorts of "evidence " of AGW is brought forth (e.g. Kilimanjaro, some glacial retreat, sea ice in the arctic etc)but much of that has natural explainations and has happened before. AGW has taken on all the symptoms of a religon: doubters are (figuratively) crucified. If the AGW proponents are wrong a great blow to science will have been made. The next time something serious occurs people will not believe.

BTW: GW has supposedly been occuring for decades. Has it affected any of you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mudman:
[b]BTW: GW has supposedly been occuring for decades. Has it affected any of you?[/b]

---

Uh, ya, it has, and is. I look out every day at mountain ranges as far as the eye can see, turning red. The winter seems to be worse this year for trees appearing to turn red on almost a daily basis. One day they look green a couple of days later they are red.

We have had to cut down over 50 tress scattered around our property because they were dead, years before their prime.

BC is seeing it directly and there is much more to come.

Last winter we had 400% above average snowfall. This year it s colder so there has been less snow, but the cold weather is too late, and not cold enough, the forests in the central interior and northern BC are dead, it is just that simple.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mudman:
[b]All sorts of "evidence " of AGW is brought forth (e.g. Kilimanjaro, some glacial retreat, sea ice in the arctic etc)but much of that has natural explainations and has happened before. AGW has taken on all the symptoms of a religon: doubters are (figuratively) crucified. If the AGW proponents are wrong a great blow to science will have been made. The next time something serious occurs people will not believe.

BTW: GW has supposedly been occuring for decades. Has it affected any of you?[/b]

---

So you think that people who live in climate sensitive regions, like the Arctic, who have maintained a traditional lifestyle for millenia, don't know what they're talking about when they say changes in weather are hurting them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by mudman:
[b]Sorry but there is no mountain of evidence for AGW.[/b]

---

Actually, there is, and if you bothered to get off your lazy ass and go looking for it with your eyes wide open instead of sitting there with your eyes shut tight and your fingers plugged tightly in your ears as you chant "la, la, la" you'd find it easily enough.

quote:

---

[b]Warming has been observed while CO2 increased and mainstream scientists saw this (CO2) as a cause of warming.[/b]

---

Nope, it was predicted over a hundred years ago by the observed and experimentally demonstrated physics of CO2's ability to absorb and emit infrared energy.
Here's a [url=http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html]primer[/url] on how it works.

quote:

---

[b]Now there is a shit load of grant money to be had, as long as you go along with the establishment.[/b]

---

You mean like this shit load of money offered by the Heartland Institute?
[url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a... if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?[/url]

Exusian

[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: Transplant ]

[ 02 February 2008: Message edited by: Transplant ]