Polar meltdown? NOT!
April 22nd, 2009 at 12:39 pm by Bill Steffen under Bill's Blog, Weather
According to the University of Illinois (and my wife has a B.S. and M.S. from the Univ. of Illinois at Champaign and she’s pretty smart, so I’d believe them) Antarctic sea ice is nearly 1,000,000 square kilometers above the 1979-2000 normal. That means that the excess sea ice would cover an area about the size of Michigan and California combined! According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, CO – Antarctic sea ice has grown at the rate of over 4% per decade over the past 30 years and reached an all-time maximum in 2008. You haven’t heard this reported in the mainstream press. What they have reported is the ice breaking off the Wikins ice shelf - which would represent about one pixel on the map here. Calving of ice off the shelf is a common and natural occurrence. Meanwhile in the Arctic – the icecap has grown more in the past 16 months than in any 16-month period on record. See this graph which shows the Arctic icecap decreasing steadily from 1979 to Sept. 2007, and then increasing at a relatively rapid rate since Sept. 2007. This is the similar graph of Antarctic ice, which has been increasing slowly since about 1986. Barrow, Alaska has averaged -5.6 deg. for April and this will be their 3rd consecutive month with temperatures below average. Anchorage, Alaska has had below average temperatures for each of the last 12 months. Nome, Alaska is 8 deg. colder than average for April and they still have 52″ of snow on the ground! Whittier, Alaska still has 81″ of snow on the ground. Note the ice in the Bering Sea. At the town of Alert in northern Canada, the average temp. this month has been -19.5F. Alert made it to +6 on Tuesday. That was the warmest temperature since last Oct. 10. The last time the temperature was above freezing in Alert was last Sept. 3. On the other side of the North Pole, Oymyakon in Siberia hasn’t been above 40F since last September and Verkoyansk finally made it to 40F on Sunday for the first time since Oct. 3. Here’s recent ice trends in the Chukchi Sea. The Arctic icecap is still about 500,000 km. below the 1979-2000 average, but that number has been shrinking in the last 16 months – certainly not a long enough time to establish a trend, but this should be taken as good news from all sides of the climate issue. If you take the 1,000,000 km. of excess ice at the South Pole and subtract the 500,000 km. of excess open water (below average ice) at the North Pole – you get 500,000 km. ABOVE the historical average! You could fit both Michigan and Al Gore’s home state of Tennessee into that area of excess surface ice! Please take a moment and read more HERE.
It’s so difficult to try to explain reality to the media brainwashed public.. I am totally on board with this information, and have been trying to steer people in the right direction for a few years! I am all for going green, but let’s do it for the right reasons folks! Thanks for posting all of this Bill
Thank for the post Bill!!! Great information! I’ve been keeping track of the ice graphs and noticed everything you are talking about.
Thank you Bill!!
Like Charles said – Going Green isnt bad, lets focus on renewable resources and conservation of animals, etc. The Global Warming thing….well, I will just bite my tongue. LOL
I’m with Charles, too. Why do they have to create a problem (Global Warming) in order to “push” going green? Why not just do it because it is the right thing to do in saving our resources?
Good timing, I just read an article about this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16988-why-antarctic-ice-is-growing-despite-global-warming.html
Forgot to add, check out the comments on the article. Lots of good debate, and a few arguments.
This is posted on digg!
http://digg.com/environment/Polar_meltdown_NOT
Please don’t confuse us with all of these facts!
I’m all for promoting conservation and keeping the planet clean, but not at the expense of the truth (the amount of manipulated data being presented as “fact” is truly sad). If people researched how many papers on AGW have been discredited they would be shocked.
I haven’t seen a single mainstream media article that shows the whole picture. They always cherry-pick the data to show the point they want to make.
(Anyways, it’s called “Climate Change” now, so no matter what happens they are right)
Dave…you’re a genius !! By changing the terminology to “Climate Change” they’ll be right no matter what ! They snookered us again
I had read awhile back that some glaciers have grown (extend into the ocean further) over the past few years, while others have receded. The “experts” indicated that global warming causes some glaciers to shrink due to warmer tempuratures. However, some glaciers supposedly grow due to increased snowfall caused by . . . drum roll . . . warmer tempuratures caused by global warming.
I’ve read similar explanations for the increased ice in the Antarctic and the decreasing ice in the Arctic. The theory is that the ice in the Arctic is shrinking due to warmer temperatures which is melting the ice, whereas the ice in the Antarctic is growing because warmer water evaporates quicker, leading to increased snowfall, and more ice.
I suppose it’s possible that ice increases and ice decreases everywhere are caused by global warming, but these explanations strike me as being a tad “convenient”.
If the ice in the Antarctic started to recede, I wonder how many of the experts would attribute this to to reduced water temps and less snow fall due to global cooling?
Uh oh Bill, now you’ve done it!
That’s all right, bring on the haters. We’ve got your back!
Take that Al Gore!
Perhaps Global warming has either slowed or stopped because of some of the new laws/regulation that the U.S. and other countries have passed!
Bill…Still no sunspots…perhaps another cold, snowy winter next season?!
What do you think?
Actually there was a small sun spot but its fading fast
SlimJim
Also, we could have cooler than normal winters due to the amount of melting snow/ice in the arctic, which could cool the surrounding waters and the the waters could cool the air!
(Not saying anybody’s opinion is wrong, just stating the possibilities!)
One of these days I’m going to buy one of those I love global warming t-shirts. I think it’s all a bunch of garbage.
Even with the sun and some what warmer temps with that wind if felt cold today. As for global warming!!! Here in Michigan we could use a little warming but I am afraid we will not see it. But even if the planet is (dose) have global warming I do not buy into all of the gloom and doom! Also the Earth has been warming ever sense the end of the last ice age. And that has happen with or with out man influence.
But as far as conserving our natural resources I am all for that, that includes saving fuel, water, trees ect. I am also for clearner water and air. So lets go green but not in the name of trying to end global warming…and what happens if (just if) we are cooling instead of warming how do we control that?
SlimJim
Thank you Bill for giving us a different perspective. I won’t pretend to be an expert on global warming, but based on the fact that most of the hype comes from the extremely biased media, I haven’t been buying a lot of it. It’s nice to see that when all of the facts are taken into account, things are not nearly as dire as they are portrayed to be. More importantly, EVEN IF global warming was happening at the rates the media reports, it’s not like we can suddenly reverse the trend by cutting greenhouse gases, etc. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be conscientious to the environment, but some of the proposed programs will cost millions of jobs and billions of dollars for a benefit that is unproven and likely to be nominal if it helps at all.
The EPA says greenhouse gasses (e.g. methane) are a health hazard due to global warming, and the greenhouse gasses therefore need to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. I also read the other day that eating more beans adds to one’s life expectancy. This begs the question: is the net effect of eating more beans an increase or a decrease in life expectancy?
ST JOSEPH TO SOUTH HAVEN MI-SOUTH HAVEN TO HOLLAND MI-
HOLLAND TO GRAND HAVEN MI-GRAND HAVEN TO WHITEHALL MI-
WHITEHALL TO PENTWATER MI-PENTWATER TO MANISTEE MI-
350 PM EDT WED APR 22 2009
THIS HAZARDOUS WEATHER OUTLOOK IS FOR PORTIONS OF SOUTHWEST LOWER
MICHIGAN.
.DAY ONE…TONIGHT
NO HAZARDOUS WEATHER IS EXPECTED AT THIS TIME.
.DAYS TWO THROUGH SEVEN…THURSDAY THROUGH TUESDAY
WIND AND WAVES MAY BE HAZARDOUS TO SMALL CRAFT FROM THURSDAY NIGHT
INTO THE WEEKEND. THUNDERSTORMS WILL BE POSSIBLE SATURDAY NIGHT
THROUGH MONDAY.
IM READY!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’m happy to see the worm turning on AGW. I was once very worried about AGW, and as a result I spent a lot of time reading up on it. It didn’t take long to find the gaping holes in the theory. It upsets me that so much money is being wasted on a non-problem, especially in the current financial climate. I really hope this is the beginning of the end on this nonsense.
Global warming is real, people. Wake up!
well thought out todd. question: is this “warming” (haven’t had the “global temp”, if there is such a thing,go up in over a decade) because of man?
Off to a cold start here with clear skies and a temp of 28°
SlimJim
[...] with the growing Arctic Ice? Does that mean their not going "ploosh" in the water? WOODTV.com Blogs Blog Archive Polar meltdown? NOT! __________________ I don’t need an [...]
I personally think that global warming is happening, but that it’s part of the Earth’s natural cycles. I do think that humans are definitely helping it, but it’s mainly Earth.
On an unrelated note, the SPC has us in the risk area for day 4 (Sunday) for severe t-storms.
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/products/exper/day4-8/
Jevon, good point and when the waters cool and we have a colder winter and more snow the ice pack and permafrost can expand, wow sounds kinda like a natural cycle.
With 80 possible Friday and or Saturday beware of reports of new global warming news LOL
you can almost bet on it.
SlimJim
I would love to get out of the U.P. A place that gets winter 12 months out of the year it seems. At least downstate has a summer and a long one at that.
Yeah global warming would do you some good…yes we have a summer but its a short one.
SlimJim
The left media will not tell you the truth.
Neither will the right media..maybe the truth lies in the middle!
SlimJim
Bill it’s time you realize that you are a meteorologist and not climatologist. You deal with weather on a on a much smaller scale. You say what the weather does over a week. A climatologist says what the weather does on average, like average precipitation, average temperature. All you do it compare to this with your biggest time frame of a season. You deal with weather, climatologists deal with climate. Global warming is a climate issue. Stop trying giving people false hope about something you are not qualified to talk about.
But the two go hand in hand. Where do you get the “average” temp from? over a 30 year average.
SlimJim
Patrick, If you learn to read and take in what you read, Bill writes about data and infomation is from those that do study climate. Again a classic left wing hit job on display. When confronted with fact or differing information, Atack people and not argue the information !
Like James Hansen (who is an astrophysicist, not a climatologist).
Or Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC – (an economist, trained initially as a railway engineer).
Or the 80% of the IPCC members who don’t have any experience with climate.
Yes, they have much more credibility…….when all you can bring to the table is an ad hominem attack you know that something is wrong. Facts are facts regardless of who repeats them.
The cracks are growing……..
Patrick – I have a B.S. in Meteorology and Physical Geography from the Univ. of Wisconsin at Madison, one of the top few meteorology/climatology schools in the U.S. They did not give undergraduate degrees in Climatology – just Atmospheric Science. I studied climatology under professors Dr. Wayne Wendling and Dr. Reid Bryson (who in 2007 said on CNBC “you could spit and cause more damage to the environment than doubling CO2 in the atmosphere”). I also aced Statistics when I was there. That matches well with Dr. Hansen, an astro-physicist, and dwarfs politician-turned carbon credit multi-millionaire Al Gore. If there is anything factually incorrect or misleading in my post, please point it out. Craig James wrote and told me it was “a great post”. I think the graph shown and the graphs and data linked to speak for themselves. I’m trying to provide useful information that may not make it to other media outlets.
Patrick, was Callander’s theory wrong simply because he was an amateur meteorologist? Was he giving the carbon dioxide believers of his day “false hope”?
“In the first half of the twentieth century, the carbon dioxide theory of climate change had fallen out of favour with climatologists. Beginning in 1938, Guy Stewart Callendar (1898-1964), a noted steam engineer and amateur meteorologist, revived this theory by arguing that rising global temperatures and increased coal burning were closely linked.”
http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/07041301.html
Perhaps it would make more sense to judge a statement on its merits?
HA! Hey Bill, maybe you should email this info to all those enviormentalist wacko’s. Ehhhh, that would not work anyways cause they would just deny it like they always do. Maybe that hippocrate Al Gore would like to see it though!
I’ve been around a decade or two and I believe that when I was young it SEEMED like we got more snow, but really, we didn’t have the plows that got out immediately to clear away the snow. People put chains on their tires to get around and the snow seemed to hang around longer. As far as global warming, I haven’t quite figured out what their plan is. Are we all going to be forced to go “green” in all of our homes, buildings, business so they empty out our pockets, or, will there be taxes and penalties for businesses who violate standards, have to shut their doors without a bail-out and then gov takes them over ? It’s the Democrats…and they ruin everything they touch and I believe….EVERYTHING. That’s my opinion and I’m stickin to it !
It’s a scientific FACT that the ocean levels are rising every year and that it is because the polar ice caps are melting. But hey, we should probably just ignore it because Bill Steffen said so.
Todd,
Next time when you state a scientific FACT, post the proof along with it please.
Since I’m such a nice guy, I researched global sea levels and found some JASON satellite data graphed from the University of Colorado. Data is plotted for the period 1992 – 2008 (or it may be current). It can be found at: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global_sm.jpg
Yes, it does show the trends of global sea level increasing linearly at a rate of 3.2mm/yr. This would yield a rate of 320mm/century or 1.05feet/century. It would be more appropriate to have a longer data set than this to get an accurate picture of sea level fluctuations over a longer period of time, but unfortunately I can find any, only statements that it has risen since the last ice age.
There is an excellent paper written about this subject called “Sea Level As an Indicator of Climate and Global Change” by Bruce B. Parker.
An important question is asked in this paper: “During the last ice age, 18,000 years ago, sea level was approximately 100 m lower than it is today. It has been rising ever since, and, during the time the glaciers retreated from covering Canada and the northern United States, sea level rose at approximately five times the present rate. Could not the present slower rise simply be part of the same process?”
From this statement, I would hope that sea levels continue at thier current pace. 1ft/century is not going to flood NYC or cause New Orleans to go completely into the Gulf of Mexico. The one thing I would be worried about would be a DECREASE in sea level, because that could only mean we would be heading into some form of the next ice age.
Your assumption of polar ice caps melting are completely wrong. Do you not believe the data that Bill provided from multiple good sources? If you don’t, I would like to see proof of your statement. You may argue that sea ice levels are still increasing even though sea ice is well above normal. My rebuttal to that would be that even though ice is well above normal, ice still floats. And, since ice floats it displaces water. Which in turn would RAISE sea levels, albeit not by much, but sea levels are not rising very fast anyway.
~Steve
Interesting. Are these “scientific FACTS” similar to the “unanimous agreement” amoung “climate experts” with respect to global cooling? Global cooling is clearly a “scientific FACT”. How do I know? I read it in a mainstream news source, and mainstream news sources are always 100% reliable in every possible way. I’m so glad I haven’t been mislead from this “scientific FACT” by considering factual information from any other sources:
“SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER; But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change
By WALTER SULLIVAN
January 30, 1961, Monday
Section: BUSINESS FINANCIAL, Page 46, 1326 words
After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.”
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00B11FB385B147A93C2AA178AD85F458685F9
“However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F.
. . .
Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth’s surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.
The earth’s current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: ‘I don’t believe that the world’s present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row.’”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
It’s 83* now…what does that indicate ?
Global climate change is not at all to do with some cold days or warm days. It is the general trend. And yes, a warming planet can cause some areas to receive more snow – warmer air can lead to increased precipitation. Not too difficult to understand.
Fact is, the earth IS warming. Species are moving north that for hundreds of years did not live there. I know this to be true since I have seen a number of plants and animal species move into the area since the 1980′s that even my great grandparents have never seen. In general northern winters are not as harsh as they used to be. The growing season is increasing.
Those who are close to land know these things to be true.
Global warming is not a myth. 6 billion people on this planet are having a major impact on climate. This is not difficult to understand either.
Bill,
I have to admit I don’t see how you draw the conclusions you do from the records of Arctic sea ice. You state that the Arctic icecap “has grown more in the past 16 months than in any 16-month period on record.” What point exactly are you trying to make with that observation? You’ve picked a period which stretches from the end of the summer of 2007, when the icecap was at its smallest (and, according to the graph, by far the smallest on record), to now, the end of the winter, when the icecap is at its biggest for the year (though still below the mean for the years since 1979). A dramatic increase, yes–but because you’re comparing summer to winter, and because in the last few years the summer-winter fluctuations have been larger than usual.
Here is what I really don’t understand about your interpretation. You mention the gradual decrease in ice cover from 1979 to September 2007, and then contrast that with the “relatively rapid” increase in the 16 months since then. And–if I’m not mistaken, this is one of your main points–you suggest that the last 16 months might indicate a turnaround in the trend. But aren’t you comparing a long-term trend with what is essentially seasonal variation? Aren’t those two very different things? If you’re looking for changes from the long-term trend, shouldn’t you look at, say, the average ice cover over the last year or two, rather than the seasonal fluctuations? Or am I missing something?
What I see when I look at the graph is (1) dramatic seasonal variation over the past two years (2) that in the last two summers the icecap has shrunk far more than any previous year on record; (3) that the extent of the winter ice now, at the end of the winter, is larger than it was in the winters of 2005-2007, but that unfortunately it is lower than it was at the end of any winter before 2004; and (5) that the present winter icecap is about the same size as the summer icecap in many years in the 1980s.
Chris – Check out this image: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png Note that the current icecap is much closer to the 1979-2000 average than it is to the 2007 icecap. You have to admit that is a very significant reversal of the decades long downward trend. I’m not drawing a lot of conclusions here, just presenting some maps and graphs to show these current trends. It does strike me that the record of the past 1.5 years is different from the public perception that ice is continuing to shrink at a rapid rate now in 2009 and that is clearly not the case. It has not been doing for two decades in the Antarctic and has not done that since 9/07 in the Arctic. Check out this graph at the Univ. of Illinois Cryosphere site: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg It stops in 2006/2007. They need to update the graphic. It’s nearly three years old and might not be giving the viewer “the whole truth”. In the post I give a link to the entire record since satellites began observing the ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic so the reader can make his/her own conclusions. I disagree with your point 2 in the last paragraph. Last summer was cool in the Arctic and the ice did not melt back at the rate that it did in summers up to 2007. Many meteorologists who look at long range weather have noted the flip to a negative PDO from the positive PDO as an indication that we are headed not toward hotter weather, but if anything cooler weather. A few meteorologists (Russians) are also looking at the prolonged lack of sunspots (which has preceded global cooling in the past) and they are watching for an increase in volcanic activity (which has been pretty meager since Pinatubo in 1991). The Redoubt Volcano has been erupting and the Karkatoa area has been “grumbling” of late.
Bill,
A few things.
You write in your response “I’m not drawing a lot of conclusions here.” So what exactly did you mean when you titled your post “Polar meltdown? NOT!”
Second, I asked some very specific questions about your interpretation of the graph of the extent of Arctic sea ice over the last few decades, and you haven’t answered them. So, once again: why is it valid to take a period of 16 months, which covers a dramatic seasonal variation, and compare it with a decades-long trend? Aren’t seasonal variations and long-term trends different things? So how can you compare them?
Though you didn’t really call attention to it in your reply, I did note, and appreciate, that you softened your interpretation of the recent data–you now say: “the record of the past 1.5 years is different from the public perception that ice is continuing to shrink at a rapid rate now in 2009,” while before you described the ice as “increasing at a relatively rapid rate” during the last 16 months. Your new statement seems like a valid observation on the data, (including the graph that you reference at the beginning of your reply): the Arctic ice didn’t shrink as much last year, 2008, as it did in 2007. That certainly seems a more valid interpretation than that the ice has been increasing rapidly.
Even so, one year doesn’t make a trend, much less “a very significant reversal of the decades long downward trend.” Believe me, I hope that the change between 2007 and 2008 is the beginning of a trend, but you cannot draw conclusions about long term trends from the contrast between one year and the next. Last winter here we had more snow than this winter–does that mean that we’re beginning a trend towards less and less snow? There’s no way of telling–you need much more information to answer that kind of question.
Third. You disagree that the ice in the last two summers melted back more than the other years on record? Unless I’m seriously misreading the graph–and I am open to being corrected–last summer the ice melted back more than in any other year except 2007. Far more, is how it looks to me. To say “the ice did not melt back at the rate that it did in summers up to 2007″ is just not right. It did not melt back as much as in 2007. That’s it. It melted back more in 2008 than in every summer before 2007.
Next, I don’t understand the point you’re making with the graph at the University of Illinois site. It looks to me as though it does include data through 2008; but even if it didn’t–what would that mean, other than just that it’s an old graph? Are you suggesting, by saying it “might not be giving the viewer the ‘whole truth,’” that the people at the U of Illinois are trying to cover something up? By not posting an updated graph?
Finally, what relevance do the PDO, sunspots, and volcanoes have for interpreting data about the Arctic sea ice?
Look, I’m not trying to prove whether or not global warming is happening. I’m saying that, to really understand what is happening, we have to interpret the information we have carefully. Under the title “Polar Meltdown? Not!” you have presented data about the Arctic sea ice, and have interpreted it as showing a recent “significant reversal” of previous trends. I’m asking you to explain more clearly how you are drawing your conclusions. To me, the data simply don’t support what you’re saying.
A melting Arctic is the last great icon of the Anthropogenic Global Warming movement. The “record” melt of 2007 (record being defined as within the thirty year period of satellite observations)has been relentlessly over hyped by the Alarmists. With considerable help from a credulous mass media, they have convinced millions of people that the North Pole will disappear forever in just a few short years and it’s all Man’s fault.
Rubbish.
Rational adults know that there are a myriad of reasons why climactic events like this occur. Let’s see what NASA had to say about this…
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/quikscat-20071001.html
“Unusual atmospheric conditions.” Yah, I bet the PDO and other oscillations seem unusual when you are hell bent on blaming everything on co2. More importantly for the Arctic appears to be the NAO, North Atlantic Oscillation…
http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis/pres/poster_ARCUS_5-04.pdf
PDO, AMO, NAO. These are twenty to thirty year swings that have a tremendous impact on climate. They have all been in their positive phase during our “unprecedented” warming of the last thirty years. Now they have either turned or are about to turn negative…for another twenty to thirty years.
During a possible grand solar minimum…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm
Ok, it’s a little early to crow yet, but this will be a slam dunk. The Arctic is not going to melt. Follow this graph for the rest off the year….
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
The Alarmists are about to lose their holy grail.
You know what is just plain hilarious? That well studied and learned men (and women) are bickering over such minor variations in the Earth’s temperature. These obviously minuscule differences are silly compared to the normal (and much more extreme) waxing and waning of temperature seen throughout Earth’s history. To those that follow this stuff, it is like arguing whether it was the iceberg or the seawater that caused the Titanic to sink.
I would say the vast majority of Americans see the whole AGW/ climate change debate for what it is… a means to gain more control of the American people while causing them to voluntarily give up their rights and freedoms. It is about power, and not carbon producing power plants. It is about POLITICAL power.
When the Obamunistic policies kick in, we are all up a creek… and the world will continue to do what it has done since its creation… it will respond to the solar radiation it is basking in.
Oh, by the way. Ask a global warming nut job whether we should all drive Ford Excursions and Hummers to jump start the world’s temperature and they will look at you like you are nuts. That is what we deniers have been saying to the AGW crazies for decades now. The idea, although looking great on paper, is in actuality quite asinine.
Remember, those that denied the earth was flat were thought to be naive, too. They also revolted from the scientific and political powers of the day. Who would Al Gore be about the time of Galileo? A religious zealot? Probably.
Why did the Mars polar caps shrink at the same rates and at the same time as the Earth’s? Was it because of all the evil SUV’s driving around near the Martian volcanoes? Hardly. Why are they now reforming at the same rate as Earth’s? Hmmm. Makes one wonder, doesn’t it? Maybe it is called SOLAR RADIATION.
Thanks for your time. Hey, you better hit the beach before they are all underwater.
The “global warming” issue has nothing to do with the environment, it is all about power and control for the “new world order”.
For example, The Club of Rome, founded in 1968 and to which Al Gore is a member, has been trying to find a “crisis” through which it can rule the masses; first was over population, then global cooling, next global warming which has now morphed to “climate change”.
In 1991, the Club of Rome published “The First Global Revolution”, authored by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider. On pp. 104-105 are found the following statements:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill… All these dangers are caused by human intervention… The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
Do a little research, the dots are not too hard to connect.
[...] That would mean big money for GE (parent company of NBC and MSNBC). Take a moment and read my previous post on polar ice…check out the graphs and charts…they speak for [...]
[...] That would mean big money for GE (parent company of NBC and MSNBC). Take a moment and read my previous post on polar ice…check out the graphs and charts…they speak for themselves. ONE LAST ADD: Check out this [...]
Bill, God Bless You! WE LOVE YOU!!!
http://www.the-green-wind.com
*sigh* Polar icecaps are just one of the many facets of the natural cycles the Earth goes through. There is no denying the negative human impact we as humans have left/are leaving. You can keep plucking certain parts of the Milankovich cycle to discount your “left wing enemies” view on climate change, but our current lifestyles will no doubt have negative consequences.
Gosh, Bill, I’ll try to remember that when I go to Glacier National Park and try to find any remaining glaciers this summer. You’re the greatest!
I see someone posted that “some glaciers are growing while others are shrinking.” Could you possibly provide a link to even one?
One that’s growing or shrinking? http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2008/04/glaciers-and-sea-ice-melting-or-growing.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,378144,00.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-growing-glaciers.html
If you want a link to a shrinking glacier, I can find you one of those too if you like.
[...] Polar meltdown? NOT! from WOODTV.com [...]