Climate Change News

[paenggoy]

AL GORE'S DOOMSDAY CLOCK: 4 years 81 days

If the earth does scorch maybe we can all live in Gore's McMansion.

Mock me, Miss Starr.

------------------------------

Save the Polar Bears!

Antarctic Sea Ice for March 2010 Significantly Greater Than 1980

06 April 2010 -

Contrary to media reports Antarctic sea ice continues to expand. Ice totals for March 2010 are significantly higher than 1980. The main stream media concentrates on a couple of small areas of the Antarctic in order to scare you in to believing that Antarctica is melting, when in fact its gaining ice.

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado

Antarctic Sea Ice for March 1980 and 2010
Extent Concentration
2010 4.0 million sq km 2.6 million sq km
1980 3.5 million sq km 2.0 million sq km

Sea Ice Extent in March 2010 is over 14% greater than in 1980
Sea Ice Concentration in March 2010 is 30% greater than in 1980!

Since measurements began in 1979 antarctic sea ice has continued to expand, contrary to what the news media would have you believe. We bring this information to you month after month and still there is no sign of the main stream media picking up on the story. They continue to discuss the relatively small areas of the Western Antarctic Peninsula that are melting due to changes in ocean currents.

You may have heard that some of the “computer models” predicted increases in antarctic ice, but they predicted increased “interior ice” due to increased snow fall. None of the models predicted increased sea ice around the antarctic. Yet that is what we have, more sea ice in March 2010 than what we had in March of 1980. This is highly significant yet hardly anyone in the main stream media (MSM) is talking about it.

Sea ice is much different than interior ice. Some of the computer models predicted increased ice over the interior of antarctic. If you've ever lived in the extreme cold temperature regions you already understand the reason why. When it gets very cold the air become drier and it snows less, as the temperature warms towards freezing it actually snows more. Since the antarctic rarely even gets close to freezing its understandable that warming would cause more snow fall. Over time compacted snow would lead to more ice. But that is not what is happening here. We're seeing increases in “sea ice”, this ice is over the ocean. Sea ice is caused by colder temperatures, not by increased snow fall. But we hear nothing from either the MSM or the scientific community. Especially compared to the out 6%-7% decrease at the arctic (this isn't year over year, this is a 6% decline since 1980!).

This continues a long trend of increasing sea ice that has been noted here for several months.

This is probably the article that contains what you shared:

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.133

There are no details about points raised concerning computer models or interior ice. However, here's the same data from the NSIDC:

http://nsidc.org/seaice/characteristics/difference.html

Some additional information about climate change from the NSIDC:

http://nsidc.org/icelights/category/climate-change/

Including

"Climate change or variability: What rules Arctic sea ice?"

http://nsidc.org/icelights/2011/08/2...rctic-sea-ice/

"Frequently Asked Questions about Arctic sea ice"

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq.html

"How do we know human activities cause climate change?"

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/fa...climate_change

[Herr_Starr]

AL GORE'S DOOMSDAY CLOCK: 4 years 81 days

If the earth does scorch maybe we can all live in Gore's McMansion.

Mock me, Miss Starr.

------------------------------

Save the Polar Bears!

Antarctic Sea Ice for March 2010 Significantly Greater Than 1980

06 April 2010 -

Contrary to media reports Antarctic sea ice continues to expand. Ice totals for March 2010 are significantly higher than 1980. The main stream media concentrates on a couple of small areas of the Antarctic in order to scare you in to believing that Antarctica is melting, when in fact its gaining ice.

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado

Antarctic Sea Ice for March 1980 and 2010
Extent Concentration
2010 4.0 million sq km 2.6 million sq km
1980 3.5 million sq km 2.0 million sq km

Sea Ice Extent in March 2010 is over 14% greater than in 1980
Sea Ice Concentration in March 2010 is 30% greater than in 1980!

Since measurements began in 1979 antarctic sea ice has continued to expand, contrary to what the news media would have you believe. We bring this information to you month after month and still there is no sign of the main stream media picking up on the story. They continue to discuss the relatively small areas of the Western Antarctic Peninsula that are melting due to changes in ocean currents.

You may have heard that some of the “computer models” predicted increases in antarctic ice, but they predicted increased “interior ice” due to increased snow fall. None of the models predicted increased sea ice around the antarctic. Yet that is what we have, more sea ice in March 2010 than what we had in March of 1980. This is highly significant yet hardly anyone in the main stream media (MSM) is talking about it.

Sea ice is much different than interior ice. Some of the computer models predicted increased ice over the interior of antarctic. If you've ever lived in the extreme cold temperature regions you already understand the reason why. When it gets very cold the air become drier and it snows less, as the temperature warms towards freezing it actually snows more. Since the antarctic rarely even gets close to freezing its understandable that warming would cause more snow fall. Over time compacted snow would lead to more ice. But that is not what is happening here. We're seeing increases in “sea ice”, this ice is over the ocean. Sea ice is caused by colder temperatures, not by increased snow fall. But we hear nothing from either the MSM or the scientific community. Especially compared to the out 6%-7% decrease at the arctic (this isn't year over year, this is a 6% decline since 1980!).

This continues a long trend of increasing sea ice that has been noted here for several months.

Instead of recycling waste, you are recycling arguments DC...raising the sea ice extent canard? This is something summersday raised two years ago.

Why would you say I won't consider it summer?

Your post is a perfect example of confirmation bias. Anthony Watts is a well known Climate Change Denier, and in this case he is being less than honest. And his readers, who claim to be skeptics, don't seem to show any skepticism to what Watts has to say. While it is true that Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing, he neglects to mention that Antarctic Land Ice is decreasing, and that the overall trend is even more ice loss in Antarctica.

What the science says:

...Not only is Antarctica losing land ice, the ice loss is accelerating at a rate of 26 Gigatonnes/yr2 (in other words, every year, the rate of ice loss is increasing by 26 Gigatonnes per year) It turns out that since 2006, East Antarctica has no longer been in mass balance but is in fact, losing ice mass (Chen 2009). This is a surprising result as East Antarctica has been considered stable because the region is so cold. This indicates the East Antarctic ice sheet is more dynamic than previously thought.

This is significant because East Antarctica contains much more ice than West Antarctica. East Antarctica contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by 50 to 60 metres while West Antarctica would contribute around 6 to 7 metres. The Antarctic ice sheet plays an important role in the total contribution to sea level. That contribution is continuously and rapidly growing.

We have established that Antarctic Sea Ice is increasing, I find it strange that a 'scientist' such as Watts fails to follow this up with a simple question, why?

The answer is not so simple:

By the way, sea ice is one thing, do you have anything on interior, landbound ice as your article states...I do:



That is much more worrying. All that ice sitting on top of the Antarctic Landmass, as opposed to floating in the Antarctic Ocean, what happens if all those trillions of tons of water were added to sea levels?

[paenggoy]

"Energy Agency Warns Governments to Take Action Against Global Warming"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...955102790.html

[paenggoy]

"National differences in reporting of climate scepticism"

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-...cepticism.html

"Trees on tundra's border are growing faster in a hotter climate"

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-...er-hotter.html

[paenggoy]

"Methane May Be Answer to 56-Million-Year Question: Ocean Could Have Contained Enough Methane to Cause Drastic Climate Change"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1109111542.htm

[paenggoy]

"Current Global Warming Is Unprecedented Compared to Climate of the Last 20,000 years, Study Finds"

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/1...limate-change/

[arcie]

Arcie, is social science alike or equal to natural sciences?

Diederik Stapel, a Dutch social psychologist, would you believe someone talking and lecturing natural science like global warming though his background/ forte is in social science? My goodness arcie, only those who believe in social media and ignorant will be a victim of that.

Aside from that, if someone have faked a research like he did, and he passed the peer-review committee, as a science, the experiment can be done and be repeated by a fellow social scientist, that is one character of a good research, repetitiveness, then he can be in great trouble, one day he will be exposed. Nakataya ang reputation mo as a scientist, your job.

And again, dahil ba dito mapapatunayan na na hoax ang AGW? Naku naman, almost 90% ng study (peer-reviewed) na pinasa sa IPCC na nagsasabing man-made ang AGW lahat dinoktor ang data at result?

Para mo na ring sinabi na out of thousands of study about health adverse ng cigarrettes sa tao, paniniwalaan mo yung isa o dalawa na nagsasabing good for the health ang paninigarilyo at mali ang thousands na naunang study, hahaha...

Ghost, I mentioned Stapel only because I was pissed off by Herr_Starr's habit of always blaming Fox News whenever his ideology is clubbed by a news article however true the news is. Remember, I made it clear that I was not talking about AGW in that post.

Now, about the so-called Climate Change. Did you know that according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade? The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is one of many respected scientific institutions that support the consensus that humans are driving global warming.

In Gregg Easterbrook's "Law of Doomsaying": Predict catastrophe no sooner than five years hence but no later than 10 years away, soon enough to terrify but distant enough that people will forget if you are wrong. ===== George F. Will

[arcie]

Have you no shame arcie!

If you're genuinely curious as to my answers, then why dont you start a thread about Diederik Stapel and my so called penchant for blaming Fox News rather than trying to derail the current discussion.

Now then, can you answer my much more germane question; what is the case of Professor Stapel doing in a thread on Climate Change? Remember, this is not about me.

It is you who has no shame, Herr_Starr. Why ask me to open another thread for my questions when it was you who exposed your habit in this very thread? You mean, you can do it and I cannot?

If you cannot answer my questions just say so and I can understand -- that you are again in the act of a great escape.

[paenggoy]

Ghost, I mentioned Stapel only because I was pissed off by Herr_Starr's habit of always blaming Fox News whenever his ideology is clubbed by a news article however true the news is. Remember, I made it clear that I was not talking about AGW in that post.

Now, about the so-called Climate Change. Did you know that according to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade? The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is one of many respected scientific institutions that support the consensus that humans are driving global warming.

In Gregg Easterbrook's "Law of Doomsaying": Predict catastrophe no sooner than five years hence but no later than 10 years away, soon enough to terrify but distant enough that people will forget if you are wrong. ===== George F. Will

This is what the WMO said regarding 1998 to 2007:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7329799.stm

Also, from UN Radio:

http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/en...il/111903.html

and

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre...pr_906_en.html

[Herr_Starr]

It is you who has no shame, Herr_Starr. Why ask me to open another thread for my questions when it was you who exposed your habit in this very thread? You mean, you can do it and I cannot?

If you cannot answer my questions just say so and I can understand -- that you are again in the act of a great escape.

Perhaps you should just learn to ask better, and more pertinent questions. If this were a high school debate, your question would have been thrown out for a lack of relevance. Imagine, debating Climate Change and you attack the opposition saying a Dutch Psychologist falsified results! (Non-sequitur much arcie? )

Tut, tut arcie. What does Professor Stapel have to do with the topic at hand? Given that I am not in the habit of answering superfluous questions, all you have to do is the following: If you can establish the relevance of what Professor Stapel did to the topic of Climate Change, I will be more than happy to answer your question. That's not asking much now is it?

So, I will ask again, what is the connection between Professor Stapel's work and Climate Change? If you cannot answer that question, instead of dodging it, just say so.

[xkcd]

winter na ulit sa northern hemisphere buhay naman ang isyung ng Climate Change PEX. di na ba nila ginagamit ngayon ang Global Warming at Climate Change na ata ang uso.

[Ghost Rider]

winter na ulit sa northern hemisphere buhay naman ang isyung ng Climate Change PEX. di na ba nila ginagamit ngayon ang Global Warming at Climate Change na ata ang uso.

Hay, ilang taon na naming sinasabi na ang climate change ay produkto ng global warming at ilang beses na ring pinapaliwanag ang tungkol sa global warming kung paano nito naapektuhan ang klima ng mga rehiyon.

Ganito ba talaga kahirap ipaalam at ipaunawa ang mga bagay na eto?

[paenggoy]

winter na ulit sa northern hemisphere buhay naman ang isyung ng Climate Change PEX. di na ba nila ginagamit ngayon ang Global Warming at Climate Change na ata ang uso.

From what I know, "climate change" is the scientific term. Media sources usually use "global warming."

[paenggoy]

Related:
"Climate change is causing marine life changes quicker than expected"

http://www.earthtimes.org/climate/cl...expected/1605/

"Frog-killer disease was born in trade"

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-in-trade.html

[Ghost Rider]

From what I know, "climate change" is the scientific term. Media sources usually use "global warming."

Nope, both are scientific term. Global warming is also called the "enhanced greenhouse effect". Climate change on the other hand is one of the product of global warming, the other is the rising of ocean level (thermal expansion and melting of land-based glaciers/ ice sheets).

[AbulugAdventure]

Wow, teng. Nagbabalik yung La Nina.

[paenggoy]

"Ex-skeptic tells US Congress climate change is real"

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-...mate-real.html

[paenggoy]

Nope, both are scientific term. Global warming is also called the "enhanced greenhouse effect". Climate change on the other hand is one of the product of global warming, the other is the rising of ocean level (thermal expansion and melting of land-based glaciers/ ice sheets).

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...ther_name.html

They are both scientific terms, but "global warming" was probably first used only during the 1970s. Also, "climate change" is probably more accurate if it describes both global warming and its effects.

[Diet Coke]

WATCH YOUR WALLET!!!!

-------------------------------------------

UN Speculations on Global Warming Rather than Facts!

Global warming has been determined to be a false scientific concept and UN speculations regarding global warming are based on fiction, not facts. The prevailing theories have been based on previous theories and political climate rather than actual facts. However, even now, the UN and other government agencies continue to push a global warming agenda based on inaccurate data.

History of Global Warming

In 1972, a study by Dr. George Kukla and Dr. Robert Matthews argued that climate was created by human intervention. They claimed that the earth was in crisis and we were headed for a second ice age, and that there was no possibility of reversing the trend. The UN took this environmental issue on as a personal project and began a worldwide environmental program that fueled the UN’s agenda for world wealth distribution. In fact, the Obama administration is already pushing for a global tax.

Pushing Global Warming

For 30 years, the UN has pushed a worldwide hysteria around the possibility of global warming. In 2007, courts determined that global warming was a product of politics rather than science. However, the UN continues to train and create agents within all levels of the government who push the global warming propaganda. Despite the fact that the US Congress has never passed a bill that approves cap-and-trade taxes or green house gas regulations, the EPA continues to globalize environmental compliance.

What Does the UN Gain By Pushing Global Warming?

By continuing to push global warming, the UN continues to push its Marxist philosophy onto us. Soon there will be a single world order that has one government, one currency and one tax system. This will be a complete globalization with countries in Africa having the most to gain. By continuing to push global warming, the UN will have the ability to implement a tax on all humans. They continue to expand their influence and push their agenda with a scientific theory that has been cobbled together.

What Scientists are Doing

Scores of scientists have formally requested that the UN stop focusing on natural climate change under the guise of global warming and instead focus on helping people adjust to the changes. Throughout history our ancestors have dealt with dramatic changes in precipitation, temperature and winds. By promoting wealth generation and economic growth we are more capable of dealing with these environmental changes.

By continuing to focus on an agenda that has been disproven by multiple scientific minds, the UN has proven that they are an ineffective agency. They refuse to apologize for or take responsibility for the flaws in the past 30 years of false science. In fact, the UN is set to make billions of dollars if climate laws are passed. Because of this, they will continue to push this political and economic agenda. With or without congressional approval we will continue to provide funds for the UN climate change agenda despite the proof that their end goal is not positive for western civilization.

http://qualimetrics.com/un-speculati...er-than-facts/

------------------------------------------------

AL GORE'S DOOMSDAY CLOCK:

4 years 70 days

[xkcd]

Hay, ilang taon na naming sinasabi na ang climate change ay produkto ng global warming at ilang beses na ring pinapaliwanag ang tungkol sa global warming kung paano nito naapektuhan ang klima ng mga rehiyon.

Ganito ba talaga kahirap ipaalam at ipaunawa ang mga bagay na eto?

lol ang tinutukoy ko ay ang usage sa media ngayon. napansin ko lang kasi from global warming naging climate change na ang gamit.

geez.