Arctic Warming: Bad and Good News - Andrew C. Revkin, NYT

[Ivan Seeking]

Bad news (and good) on Arctic warming
By Andrew C. Revkin The New York Times
Saturday, October 30, 2004

NEW YORK The first thorough assessment of a decades-long Arctic warming trend shows the region is undergoing profound changes, including sharp retreats of glaciers and sea ice, thawing of permafrost, and shifts in ocean and atmospheric conditions that are likely to harm native communities, wildlife and economic activities, while offering some benefits.

The report - conducted and reviewed by 250 scientists and representatives of six organizations representing Arctic native communities - while noting that conditions in the far north have varied naturally in the past, says the current shifts match longstanding scientific projections that the Arctic should be the first place to feel the effect of rising atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases from smokestacks and tail pipes.

It adds that the warming and other changes are likely to accelerate in this century because of the buildup in greenhouse gases.

Prompt efforts to curb such emissions could slow the pace of change sufficiently to allow communities and wildlife to adapt, the report says. [continued]

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2004/10/29/news/arctic.html

 

[Andre]

In some forums it's policy not allowing a thread start with a simple quote. What's the point here? Must we argue that the poles are not warming? Well the hemisphere does but the Eastern stations in Siberia show an overal cooling trend.

The point is that all this scaramonger messages dogmatically report "It's getting warm here because of Carbon Dioxide". Another http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/post-hoc.html. It's getting warm.full stop, period, basta. No "because of.."

Because of more haze and soot, changing albedo, solar activity, interference and resonance between the Arctic oscillation and the North Atlantic oscillation with a period of 42 years,

And besides the http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Arctic.jpg

 

[selfAdjoint]

In this week's Science there's a discussion of improvements in climate foresacting. Basically they have reduced the number of driving cycles in the northern temperate and polar zones to two, one is a temperature alternation betrween concentric bands around the pole, and the other is a band across the northern Pacific and North America. Cycling through their patterns, together with ENSO, they drive the northern hemisphere climate. Apparently all by themselves they can bring arctic warming; there was a photo with the article of a Soviet era building in Siberia crumbling because the permafrost was no longer solid.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The point is that all this scaramonger messages dogmatically report "It's getting warm here because of Carbon Dioxide". [/url]

250 scientists...The study, called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, was commissioned four years ago by the eight nations with Arctic territory - Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden, and the United States.

...clearly a conspiracy of scaremongers, otherwise known as a consensus among credible experts. I don't suppose they might actually know about any other data cited here?

 

[Andre]

Thanks for your demonstration, "mr A"

No conspiracy just psychology or idiology. But I'm happy to start all over again.

I don't suppose they might actually know about any other data cited here?

I suppose that's implying that I'm lying with that http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/Arctic.jpg ?

Dare me.

In idiology it's no matter anymore how solid counter evidence is. You simply ignore it.

 

[Andre]

Well I guess there is science and there is science.

Here is the real science:

Climate Experts Respond to Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
Tuesday November 16, 10:41 am ET
Recent Warming Trend is Unexceptional Compared to Natural Variability in Centuries Past


WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Today 11 climate experts sent a letter (please see below) to Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who is the Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee and is holding a full committee hearing this morning to hear testimony on the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).
In the letter, the climate experts respond to statements made in the ACIA that temperature changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of global warming. The signers of the letter point out that sediment and ice core samples show that the arctic has experienced past warming that can not be attributed to greenhouse gas concentrations.
...cont.

 

[wolram]

How much of this science is political? some governments refuse
to sign up for reduced emissions, or are willing to trade output
of harmful chemicals to the environment.

 

[Andre]

How much of this science is political?

Welcome to the Ministery of truth where the truth is generated to suit the wishes of big brother, regardless of the real truth.

Global warming is no more science, just idiology. But please check all the available links and see who is generating the idiology.

 

[Phobos]

Well I guess there is science and there is science.

Here is the real science:

FWIW, from the snippets I caught of that testimony to McCain (on C-SPAN perhaps?), those scientists were telling him that at least a portion of the observed global warming is due to human activity.

I still need to read that new Arctic climate report.

 

[Andre]

Perhaps this helps too.

Found this somewhere:

I have developed a computer model and fed it data that shows that the average human height has increased by 6 inches in the last 100 years. My computer model indicates that this trend will continue, or even increase through time as nutrition and medicine continue to improve. The net result is that the average human height will approach 10 feet in 300 to 600 years. As a result of this amazing find, I get the governments of the world to spend millions and millions of taxpayer dollars to identify all the problems resulting from 10 foot tall humans, and then recommend that we lower the quality of the food we eat, to avoid the inevitable problems of huge people.

Because the concept of human height and nutrition are more widely understood, no one would pay me to do such research. I would be scorned, and rightly so. But climate change is much more complicated and the people paying the bucks don't really understand what is going on. Because they are ingnorant, they believe that climate models actually have some ability to forecast future climate. In reality, the models are fiction, just like my height prediction model.

This Arctic report is based on that fiction. It is a 'what if' report, like 'What if the moon really was made of green cheese?' It is a mental excercise; a game. It is not real science, because the conclusion was set before the research began.

 

[Locrian]

Where would it be suggested I gather more information on the computer models used by the IPCC? A lot has been said on these boards about them, but I'm having trouble compiling them. I'm a little reluctant to just do a net search and hope for the best.

Thanks in advance