Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

U.S. marine-mammal experts fear for Arctic

DAN JOLING

The Associated Press

Latest comment posted at 3:05 PM EST 25/12/07

Issue warning that thinning sea ice caused by global warming will harm walrus, polar bears and seals ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Jeff S from Canada writes: exactly how did they all survive the last time there Einstein?

    why isn't anybody questioning these people.
  2. tom h from Canada writes: Easy on the insults there, Jeff S. There wasn't a 'last time' - the Earth is getting warmer than it has been at any period since these species evolved. And by the way, seeing as 'these people' (as you so warmly refer to the scientists), publish their work in peer-reviewed journals, EVERYTHING they do is questioned before it sees the light of day.
  3. globefan EH from Canada writes: The last time, do you mean the last ice age?

    Did you forget the almost seven billion people around today and their consumption patterns in the equation when you called the USGS and other scientists...Einstein?
  4. L. W. from Greener Pastures, Canada writes: I wonder if these U.S. scientists can get the message through to their current administration?
  5. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: tom h from Canada writes:'... in peer-reviewed journals, everything they do is questioned before it sees the light of day.'

    And then it's questioned afterward, too.

    The media keep trotting out GW scare stories several times a week, and all the while the actual global temperatures are at worst stable, and are even starting to cool slightly:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf

    It's clear that the southern hemisphere is cooling faster and sooner than the northern one, just as happened in 1940, the last time we went from warming to cooling.
  6. Behind Space from Canada writes: Jeff S is simply exemplifying one of the common flawed arguments used by climate change deniers.

    Kudos to tom h, globefan and garhard, people who realize science isn't something like politics where you can just throw around unfounded claims.
  7. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Well, Behind, the people upon whom you would lay kudos are just throwing around unfounded claims for political reasons.
  8. Behind Space from Canada writes: Sorry GlynnMhor, their point is valid, despite what you may claim, with your degree in climatology (?)
  9. KSW livin'in from Canada writes: GlynnMohr: don't you find it interesting that the conclusions you draw are very different from the scientists who's references you cite?

    The chart that you provided a link to shows anomalies from the 1961 to 1990 mean. The globe is still far above the mean tempurature derived between 1961 and 1990, it can in no way be considered to be stable or cooling.

    You know just because we didn't have a major volcanic eruption this year doesn't mean plate tectonics doesn't exist. Physics still rules and greenhouse gases are still going to cause warming even if every year isn't warmer than the last.
  10. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Canada writes: 'GlynnMohr: don't you find it interesting that the conclusions you draw are very different from the scientists who's references you cite?'

    Yes, I find not merely 'interesting', but highly suspicious.

    'The globe... in no way be considered to be stable or cooling.'

    Global temperatures have not risen other than trivially for the last six years. How is that anything but stable? Sure, it has not (yet) cooled to the average between 1960-1990, but that doesn't mean it's still warming.
  11. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Behind Space from Canada writes: 'Sorry GlynnMhor, their point is valid...'

    The claim that temperatures have never been as warm as since the walrus evolved (approx 10 million years ago) has no foundation; we don't have even really good proxy data that far back, and what we do have shows we are in a cooler-than-average climate state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology

    Having seven billion people around has no probative value as to whether temperature changes have anything to do with people.

    And calling someone 'not Einstein' doesn't have a point either.
  12. Behind Space from Canada writes: Ahh, GlynnMhor, now that I look at your responses again, I think I have found the problem. You don't understand the meaning of trends.

    I'm sure that you can at least see that the line is moving, overall, in an upward direction. I'm also sure you notice there are many ups and downs in the data points. You are simply grasping at straws by claiming that the last couple years mean anything significant to the overall pattern. Try plotting the graph on Excel and have it draw a trendline and you will see.

    Another point. The scientists who compiled the data, analyzed and interpreted it, they DO understand about trends. Ups and downs are expected. The current drop that you keep pointing to is a short term observation. Looking at the entire trend will show long-term.

    This will be my last post to you tonight, so I won't be responding to anymore of your posts. But do try and understand the concept of trends, and have a Merry Christmas.
  13. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Behind Space from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor... You don't understand the meaning of trends.'

    The historical trend shows alternating thirty-year periods of cooling (1880-1910, 1940-1970) with thirty year periods of warming (1910-1940, 1970-2000). While one might quibble about the exact years of the inflection points, the trend is clear. And we look to be starting another thirty-year cooling phase.

    The IPCC models match a 'cherry-picked' warming period from 1970-2000, but fail to match the observed data before and after that time, as their figure 9.5, page 684 illustrates:

    http://tinyurl.com/yplrpb

    Their models show a warming of 0.45 degrees from 1910-1960, about 0.009 degrees per year, while the data show warming from 1910-1940 of 0.51 degrees, about 0.017 degrees per year, almost twice as fast and over three fifths the time.
  14. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Meanwhile the solar variations, that the IPCC so diligently ignores, correlate far better with temperature changes than do GHG concentrations:

    http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/IASTP/43/
    http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

    While there are good reasons to suppose that AGHGs influence temperatures, the claims so often made that they are the sole or even dominant factor just don't hold up under scrutiny.
  15. Behind Space from Canada writes: GlynnMhor, my bad, this will be my last one for sure. I leave for a party =)

    Alright, how about I point out to you, probably the best thing I can think of to show you your errors.

    Plot the points of the graph onto Excel, then have it draw a trendline.

    Cheers
  16. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Behind Space from Canada writes:'Plot the points of the graph onto Excel, then have it draw a trendline.'

    I can see all of the thirty-year trendlines pretty clearly without Excel. So can you, for that matter.
  17. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Meanwhile the solar variations, that the IPCC so diligently ignores, correlate far better with temperature changes than do GHG concentrations:'

    Still trying to peddle crap and ignorance? 'Coorelation is not causation' The factors involved are more than one and have been clearly determined to be Aerosols, solar, and GHGs. While solar cannot be ignored, its influence is limited (the sun is a VERY stable main sequence star) and on the decline while GHGs continue to accumulate open ended.

    No current support for the 'Svenkmark effect' is in any peer reviewed literature. It remains a very unlikely hypothesis since it would not only have to be given some serious data to substantiate it, but you woyuld, at the same time, have to 'explain away' the very well founded effect of GHGs.

    'While there are good reasons to suppose that AGHGs influence temperatures, the claims so often made that they are the sole or even dominant factor just don't hold up under scrutiny.'

    The peer reviewed climate scientists disagree. What are your qualifications again? Other than troll?
  18. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Ian St. John from Canada writes:'[solar] influence is limited... and on the decline...'

    Those who study the Sun have found it to have hit its most active level in several centuries.

    You are correct, though, in that the Sun has just recently gone into a decline, and as you are aware we're now seeing temperatures have ceased increasing, and are now declining as well.

    And while AGHGs accumulate 'open-ended', it's quite clear that their influence is limited, since temperatures have not been increasing 'open-ended' at the same time.

    As you say, 'correlation is not causation', but yet the IPCC leans heavily on the correlation between AGHGs and the 1970-2000 warming period.
  19. KSW livin'in from Canada writes: GlynnMohr - speaking of cherry picked data; you cite the Hadley center for your tempurature anomalies. Why don't you also cite them for your solar forcings? You can find it in the 'myths' section of their website.

    Also you should READ the IPCC report that you cite, it doesn't got o 2000 as you eroneously claim above it goes to 2005 (trend still up), and in the same section compares natural forcings with anthropogenic.

    If you think they are wrong, don't argue with me and 'Behind Space' take your argument to the pages of Science and Nature, cause you must know way more than they do.
  20. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Canada writes: 'GlynnMohr: you cite the Hadley center for your temperature anomalies. Why don't you also cite them for your solar forcings?'

    They have no data to on solar activity.
  21. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: KSW livin'in from Canada writes: 'GlynnMohr: ... the IPCC report that you cite, it doesn't go to 2000 as you erroneously claim above it goes to 2005 (trend still up)...'

    I make no claim as to what limits the IPCC have set for their modelling. However, the temperatures are definitely not warming now. While you might quibble about 2000, or 2001 as the inflection point, there's absolutely no remaining way to claim that global temperatures are rising.

    '...and in the same section compares natural forcings with anthropogenic.'

    Just as I have tried to point out to people. Their models fail to replicate the past temperature trends whether they include AGHGs or not. At best they match only the most recent warming.
  22. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'Coorelation is not causation'

    While the existence of correlation does not tell us what direction there might be causality, the absence of correlation clearly undermines any sort of causality.

    And the historical temperature trend flatly doesn't match the historical GHG concentration trend except for the most recent warming period.

    And since GHG concentrations are continually rising, that can easily be a simple coincidence of occuring in the midst of a time of temperature increases.

    As global temperatures continue to cool in the next decades, it will become ever clearer that the 'AGHG panic' was as overblown as the 'ozone hole' panic of the early 1990s
  23. Gawd Knows from Canada writes: GlynnMhor represents the classic example of humanities most common trait. 'The ability to Denyof any concept that is in any way uncomfortable.'
  24. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gawd Knows from Canada writes: '... deny any concept that is in any way uncomfortable.'

    Or in this case, to deny concepts that are not adequately supported by the facts.
  25. Gawd Knows from Canada writes: GlynnMhor continues to deny the facts. Fear will do that.
  26. Hugh McNeil from Canada writes: Yes Glynnmohr... it is questioned afterwards too. If not by scientists, then by politicians, paid lobbyists, and other quacks. Glynnmohr of Skywall models himself after a fantasy figure, but questions the PhDs...
  27. Hugh McNeil from Canada writes: An aside... I believe it is a requirement of the CRTC that if an article is written positing a point of view which is paid for by a company, then the article has to be attributed to a named executive of the company, or it has to be labelled an advertisement. Is Glynnmohr skirting CRTC regulations?
  28. CharlesEmerson WinchesterIV from Canada writes: GlynnMhor,

    Shocking.

    The biased nature of your choice of reference papers, which either contain outdated data, or are obscure and poorly written, demonstrate what a dangerous medium the internet can be for the motivated, the ignorant, and the uneducated who are willing to spend time digging up this or other rubbish demonstrating that the world is indeed flat, unchanged by human activity, and at the center of our solar system, if not universe.

    Please question your sources with more vigor, and to echo KSW, why not show us some articles from 'Science' or 'Nature' proving your point. As these are unbiased, peer reviewed scientific journals, containing facts which have been cross checked by other experts in the field.
  29. marge kelvin from HadCRUT3 dataset, Canada writes: Glynn, darlin':

    I made the mistake of having a look at this site for underachieving, grandiose narcissists, and here you are, pumping furiously away, probably like yesterday, and the day before that, and last month ...

    Get a box of Kleenex and do your thing privately.

    Thanks. Good night and good luck.
  30. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: CharlesEmerson WinchesterIV from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor, Shocking. The biased nature of your choice of reference papers...'

    Well, while I must admit that the IPCC report is outdated and biased, the Hadley Centre's temperature data are very much up to date (to the end of November as best they can manage) and do not show signs of bias.
  31. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: CharlesEmerson WinchesterIV from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor: ... question your sources with more vigor...'

    That's just the exercise, to question the sources. In particular the IPCC.

    Why are you so shocked and offended that I take issue with their failings?
  32. martha stewart from Canada writes: Would just like to wish all my favourite 'usual suspects' on both sides of this endless debate a very Merry Christmas. Hope the impacts on the North Pole have not impacted Santa.

    Cheers :-)
  33. Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: I suggust you look up some old photos of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, say take a pic every 5 or 10 years, theres lots of them, then watch the glacier disappear. Tell me it's not getting warmer
  34. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'Iain's Opinion from Canada writes: I suggust you look up some old photos of Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa, say take a pic every 5 or 10 years, theres lots of them, then watch the glacier disappear. Tell me it's not getting warmer'

    Non-sequitur. The reduction of tropical glaciers seems to stem from dryer air in the upper atmosphere.
    http://tinyurl.com/28xbaj
    'The fact that the loss of ice on Mount Kilimanjaro cannot be used as proof of global warming does not mean that the Earth is not warming.'

    While this may be attributable to GW (not as yet) climate changes, it is not due to it being 'warmer'. GW is about small changes in differential temperatures creating major changes in climates.
  35. martha stewart from Canada writes: Iain's Opinion - Well, its Christmas and you asked, so, OK, its not getting warmer.

    P.S. Research Kilimanjaro. Changing surrounding land use has been linked to that, even by the Kyoto gang. Not a poster child for AGW.
  36. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: That's just the exercise, to question the sources. In particular the IPCC.'

    No. To question a soure, you would have to publish peer reviewed articles showing errors. Denal by the village idiot is not 'questioning' so much as his nature..

    'Why are you so shocked and offended that I take issue with their failings?'

    Nobody is shocked that you imagine failings on their part. It seems to be all you have to contribute is your imagination.
  37. The Bubble from Canada writes: I think it's a bit much to use a term like 'climate change denyers'. People who argue that there is nothing to get concerned about are simply fools.
    Within 10 years the administration of George Bush and the people who supported him will be viewed as criminals.
    Glibmoor is simply spinning and increasingly is not only alone but very very pathetic.
    A couple of dozen dead in the midwest from these huge winter storms we are getting isn't even news anymore.
    3000-4000 walrus' dead, nothing, remember when people got upset because some Newfoundlanders killed some seal pups?
    People believe in the Third Reich even today. Some people will simply get something in their heads and never allow for the weakness of an open mind.
  38. martha stewart from Canada writes: CD W - It wasn't an ice bridge, it was a land bridge called Berengia that emerged from lower sea levels with so much water frozen in continental ice sheets. Then when the warming started, as you say, it was flooded not melted. Same general effect...

    The Bubble - Its a free country, including the freedom to be a fool... enjoy your freedom. Hope you appreciate how your comment here goes both ways:

    'Some people will simply get something in their heads and never allow for the weakness of an open mind.'

    And, once again, with all due respect for the IPCC (Institute for Politically Correct Christmas), Merry Christmas! And its a very white Christmas where we are, with no flooding in sight!
  39. Darryl Williams from Dartmouth, NS, Canada writes: Hey Glynnmhor - back already for more?

    I see you're still peddling that link that I debunked yesterday - the Lassen link - the one where the guy does more research, and 10 years later admits that his theory is no longer correct? The one that Glynnmhor is basing his conclusions on.

    For everyone except Glynnmhor - go look at the comments section for the article on 'backyard skating rinks' - scroll down to the last couple of dozen comments to see a running commentary between Glynn and I - in which I completely debunk his arguments.

    Yes, we also discussed the Arctic - except Glynn decides to conveniently dismiss it as a local effect. On second thought, Glynn - you'd better go back and review that exchange as well. You seem to have a very short and very selective memory.
  40. Darryl Williams from Dartmouth, NS, Canada writes: At 4:38 today, Glynnmhor posted this link:

    http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

    This is a paper co-authored by K Lassen in 1991 that used data up to 1988. However, I pointed out to Glynmhor yesterday that the same author now admits that his theory is wrong (in a paper from 2000), and cannot account for the global warming in the 1990's. Here's the link for that one:

    http://tinyurl.com/2q2doq

    Sorry Glynnmhor - you have been debunked again.

  41. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Well, I see GlynnMhor is up to his usual 'Poor Johnny One-Note' tricks, citing cherry-picked data and making distorted claims, refuted here many times before.

    I'll ask again, GlynnMhor, as I have done in another thread: Is NOAA lying when they say:

    Global Temperatures

    The global annual temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces for 2007 is expected to be near 58.0°F and would be the fifth warmest since records began in 1880. Some of the largest and most widespread warm anomalies occurred from eastern Europe to central Asia.

    Including 2007, seven of the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 2001 and the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1997. The global average surface temperature has risen between 0.6°C and 0.7°C since the start of the twentieth century, and the rate of increase since 1976 has been approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend.

    The greatest warming has taken place in high latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere. Anomalous warmth in 2007 contributed to the lowest Arctic sea ice extent since satellite records began in 1979, surpassing the previous record low set in 2005 by a remarkable 23 percent. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, this is part of a continuing trend in end-of-summer Arctic sea ice extent reductions of approximately 10 percent per decade since 1979.

    See: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/ann07.html
  42. Darryl Williams from Dartmouth, NS, Canada writes: Another favourite tactic of Glynnmhor's is to claim that the IPCC scientists don't study the effect of variations of solar radiation, or that they ignore the effect.

    Well Glynnmhor - here you go, check this out: 'Simulation of the influence of solar radiation variations on the global climate with an ocean-atmosphere general circulation model'. And here's the link: read the abstract and the conclusion for yourself:

    http://tinyurl.com/23kj98

    Hate to spoil your Christmas (again) Glynnmhor, but you've been debunked again.
  43. Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes: Readers might also like to have a look at the NASA Goddard Space Sciences page at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/, especially the animations of temperature change.
  44. Darryl Williams from Dartmouth, NS, Canada writes: Hi Alan Burke:

    Yesterday I asked Glynnmhor about the record Arctic ice extent minimum in Sep 2007. His response was that it was merely a local effect, didn't really have anything to do with global warming, and was no big deal since the Arctic was only about 1/8 of the globe!!!

    But wait Glynnmhor - here's a paper that may cause you some excitement:

    'Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?' by Stott, Jones, and Mitchell of the Hadley Center.

    Oops, sorry - you've struck out again - read the abstract here.

    http://tinyurl.com/yvcmfc
  45. martha stewart from Canada writes: Alan and Daryl - Gee boys! I'm just killing a little time before the festivities and here I find you in particular Daryl still ragging on GlynnMhor. If you don't start being nice before midnight you will end up with a lump of coal in your stocking - and you know how evil coal is in the climate change department!!!

    There's plenty of time for dissing people for how they count the angels on the head of a pin later. And don't you realize that nothing posted here matters in the real world anyways? Its all just harmless 'emissions' that only count when the G & M flogs its apparent readership to advertisers.

    Well, I posted again - Merry Christmas you, and to the G & M.
  46. Darryl Williams from Dartmouth, NS, Canada writes: Merry Christmas to you too, Martha Stewart.

    However, glynnmhor is a slow learner - he forgot everything I taught him yesterday (and it even stretched into today). And then a few hours later, he's still spewing the same crap.

    Recap: at 4:38 he references his Lassen paper from 1991 based on data to 1988.

    at 7:18 - he calls the IPCC report outdated (it was released in Nov 07!!), while the Hadley center data that extends to end Nov 07 is 'up to date'. LOL!!!!

    at 9:21 - I call Glynnmhor on his BS - and show him and everyone else here a link to a more recent paper by Lassen (2000) - where he admits his theory and original premise no longer holds - and cannot explain the temp rise, and is therefore flawed.

    at 9:51 - I give him more links from his beloved 'Hadley Center' that continue to debunk his BS.
  47. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: Jeff S. EXACTLY! Succinct and accurate. Appreciated.
  48. Eric Stewart from Canada writes: My favorite posters are here tonight.... Alan, Martha, Ian and Glynnmhor... Merry Christmas kids..... be nice to each other now, it is Christmas after all.

    Best wishes to all.....
  49. Patrick Matheson from Canada writes: Ya.. exactly.. JS and All...How Did They Survive the last ice age?!
    Ya... right, yes.. umm.. err.. EXACTLY. How did they survive? I mean they exist now... I exist now... so that means... that I am here now and they are here now and.. well.. ya That Ice Age was pretty cold and yea... they might have moved around or something.. maybe they died? But they survived right? and I am here so I must have survived.. well and that the last global change took a long time to occur but.. well I guess that they had time to adapt and well. I am here so that proves... err... that I survived and being on top of food chain means that I am Top so I will survive since I survived and that they survived before so... by the time it means anything I will be Dead and those seals that are alive now will be dead but I am surviving and that... technology always makes things better and that someone will invent something (while I am alive, hopefully) and that same technology that will fix everything is not the same technology that says that there is global warming. I trust and believe in the technology that says that I am ok and that everything is ok.. and my children... well they are tough and what does a few dead seals mean anyway, they die all the time. big whoop... we don't eat seal, we don't wear anything made of seal.. I just but some steaks now and again... they're not cattle farming in the Arctic are they? dont really need them anyway and my children and their kids will survive and cope and adapt and learn and well there are always picture books and video and museums and pretty aquariums... so we will all survive.. Hey I don't even live up there so what does it matter anyway... its not like the oil sands are melting?! we can make gas out of food now... maybe we can use whale and seal oil and turn that into gas? and I hear that there is oil up north.. be alot easier to get at it without snow and seals in the way.... seem pretty good in my mind.. Why is no one questioning these people?
  50. Gawd Knows from Canada writes: Yes, NASA is lying, the scientists are lying, climatologists are lying, and even the evidence is a lie. The truth comes from GlynnMor, or so he tells us, over, and over and over ad in finitum.

    How I wonder, does he manage to delude himself?
  51. Ed Anger from Canada writes: until winnipeg warms up climate change is bogus. We haved moved on from the Atkins diet and we must move on from this climate change nonsense.
  52. Ed Anger from Canada writes: I just love how the under 25 year old crowd look for a new cause. The previous 2 generations saw the rise of hippie power and the last saw banning of nuclear power. This generation should concentrate on getting laid and worry less about climate change. Dont forget that my generation was told that the earth was cooling and that we would have an ice age by now. You cant blame it all on the drugs back then. Your kids are going to laugh about this one.
  53. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Intense return flows of moist warm air prompted by stronger Mobile Polar highs are the origin of local warming trends. Just as those blindfolded scientists who are asked to describe an elephant, one will say it is flat -he touch the ear-, the other will say its long, narrow and round -touches the tail- and another one will say it's big and round etc... The same goes here where the media reports only what shows a local warming without understanding, nor trying to look for someone who can explain very simply why there is local warming like in Alaska in a cooling context demonstrated by the strength of the MPH, the rising pressure field toward the equator etc... reference Marcel Leroux, a climatologist who has observed not modeledphenomenons... But that would mean the globe is trying to inform its readership not merely parroting others' reports.
  54. Matthew Rockall from Mission, Canada writes: ABC. Anything But Conservative!

    Fight global warming. Reduce your carbon footprint.

    Those who deny the truth despite overwhelming evidence, die in shameful ignorance. You are a threat to us all.

    Oh, and Merry Christmas!
  55. Polar Bear from floating on iceberg .., Canada writes: Enough ... GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada please claim your doctorate from Univ of Nonsense and Ignorance. You have done enough research on Christmas eve to deserve that.

    Merry Christmas.
  56. A Canadian from Cole Harbour, Canada writes: In april 2007 a remarkable new core was extracted during the recent Antarctic summer from record-setting drilling depths 4,214 feet below the sea floor beneath Antarctica's Ross Ice Shelf, the Earth's largest floating ice body. Laced with sediment dating from the present day to about 10 million years ago, the core provides a geologic record of the ice shelf's history in unprecedented detail.

    Greenish rock layered throughout the 'time capsule' indicates periods of open-water conditions, suggesting that the Ross ice shelf retreated and advanced perhaps as many as 50 times over the last 5 million years in response to climate changes, says FSU AMGRF Head Curator Matthew Olney.

    Although this was taken from the Antarctic, I am sure the Artic was also affected by the change in climate. I wonder how the walrus, polar bears and seals ever managed during the last 50 times or so we had global warming.
  57. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Darryl Williams from Dartmouth, NS, Canada writes: 'Hey Glynnmhor - back already for more? I see you're still peddling that link that I debunked yesterday'

    He/she has been doing the same copy/paste job on every thread mentioning climate change at the Globe and Mail site for weeks now. He/she engages in pretend conversations with respondants, and then starts all over again with the same copy/paste job in the next available thread. There is little point in trying to engage anyone like that, but he/she should certainly be identified as a sham so other readers don't waste their time with him/her.
  58. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: Ed Anger from Canada writes: 'Dont forget that my generation was told that the earth was cooling'

    That's rather blatant hyperbole. That scientific hypothesis was a grain of sand in the beach of today's climate science. You must have read about it when you came down temporarily from your high.

    New Scientist discussion: http://tinyurl.com/yokpza
  59. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'A Canadian from Cole Harbour, Canada writes: Greenish rock layered throughout the 'time capsule' indicates periods of open-water conditions, suggesting that the Ross ice shelf retreated and advanced perhaps as many as 50 times over the last 5 million years in response to climate changes, says FSU AMGRF Head Curator Matthew Olney. I wonder how the walrus, polar bears and seals ever managed during the last 50 times or so we had global warming. '

    They got through ice ages just fine. Ice ages are caused by orbital cycles. They are not 'global warming' as the total insolation doesn't change (well slightly due to increased albedo from the ice shets) so it would be quite in keeping with what we know about climate that ice ages in the NH would be 'matched' by warmer climates in the SH.

    But go ahead and leap to unfounded conclusions. Its entertaining to see you squirm trying to deny a short term GW trend of just 120 years or so by referencing changes that need millenia to occur.
  60. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: He/she has been doing the same copy/paste job on every thread mentioning climate change at the Globe and Mail site for weeks now. He/she engages in pretend conversations with respondants, and then starts all over again with the same copy/paste job in the next available thread. There is little point in trying to engage anyone like that, but he/she should certainly be identified as a sham so other readers don't waste their time with him/her.'

    You're talking about Glynmor right? Certainly he keeps repeating the same junk despite being clearly rebutted but 'copy and paste' isn't a relevant criticism. Repeating the same lies over and over in the face of clear rebuttals by multiple posters is. It is apparent that no amount of 'peer review' will make a difference to his 'dogma'.
  61. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'Ed Anger from Canada writes: until winnipeg warms up climate change is bogus. We haved moved on from the Atkins diet and we must move on from this climate change nonsense. '

    Edmonton is clearly being affected by GW already. Contrary to the simple minded musings of this hick, global warming is not entirely about what regions warm up. While this may affect ice in the polar regions as the effect accumulates, the main concern about GW is not the 0.8C = 5C temperature change but the change in temperature difference at different latitudes and altitudes. Climate is a 'heat engine' and supercharging it buys you a much more unstable climate. This is not good for farming.
  62. A Canadian from Cole Harbour, Canada writes: Ian St. John you wrote......leap to unfounded conclusions. Its entertaining to see you squirm trying to deny a short term GW trend of just 120 years . Yep, you use 120 years of climate history and you accuse me of coming to unfounded conclusions. This is funny. You like short term, how about this tidbit based on short term data: 'According to the most recent data from the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the year 2006 is set to be: colder than 2005, colder than 2004, colder than 2003, colder than 2002 ... and, most obviously, ... colder than 1998, despite the new El Nino that has been warming the Earth again for a couple of months at the end of 2006 and that will probably continue in 2007. Yes, right now it seems that 2006 will become the coldest year among the most recent five years, and it will belong to the colder half of the years in the last decade. The number of hurricanes in 2006 was below the long-term average. The total number of Atlantic tropical storms was the second lowest number during the last 12 years, after 1997. Using the WMO terminology, 2006 is set to become the 'sixth warmest year' after 1998, 2005, 2002, 2003, and 2004: see WMO's top five. '
  63. Darryl Williams from Dartmouth, NS, Canada writes: Hi Hugh Campbell - yes, I have been following Glynnmhor's ravings for several months, too, and agree with your points.

    It's kind of like playing the 'Whack-a-Mole' game at the carnival: wait till he appears, then bop him back down.
  64. Farm Boy from Big City, Canada writes: Alright, so global warming is real but anyone who thinks that the population of this planet is capable of organising themselves to take concerted action to stop it is kidding themselves. There'll be endless crazy schemes like carbon trading that will make a few people super rich but nothing more. We'd better plan to adjust.
  65. Mike McFae from Canada writes: Imagine, on Christmas morning , arguing about Global Warming with a bunch of people you don't know instead of spendinng time with your family.
  66. L. van Dyk from Canada writes: My familiy is hogging the bathroom.
    The globe is warmer than it has been; why else would the ice melt?
    From this point the temperature doesn't have to increase any further for the ice to continue melting.

    Why this happened and what will happen next are busting my noodle.
  67. Moji Byrd from Canada writes: Of course the scientists are correct...that is why there is a large group 400 and counting that are saying GW by man is a myth...but then most of you would rather believe whatever the media tells you anyhow...and naturally you will not discover this piece of evidence in the media...but if you let your fingers do a walking on the internet you will be surprised...go ahead and give it a try.

    And by the way if you are over the age of 40, do you not remember in the early 70's we were going into an ice-age - which never came about...but alas how quick we are to jump on the band wagon of go green or go home so we can make the world a better place for generations to come.
  68. Nom De Plume from Canada writes: Don't let this overworked topic spoil your Christmas boys and girls. Make today a good day for yourself and those you love.
  69. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Ian St. John from Canada writes:'To question a soure, you would have to publish peer reviewed articles...'

    I assume you meant 'source', and not 'sore'.

    In any case, anyone can question anything. It's not sources that have importance; you're too obsessed with credentialism as usual Ian.
  70. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Darryl Williams from Dartmouth, NS, Canada writes:'... author now admits that his theory is wrong (in a paper from 2000), and cannot account for the global warming in the 1990's.'

    You really should learn to read. The author, Lassen, never did premise that all warming was due to solar effects, and only says that he thinks the solar effect accounted for more of the warming pre-1988 than it does for the post-1988 period.

    Meanwhile the IPCC still thinks that solar effects are negative (ie- cooling).
  71. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke from Ottawa, Canada writes:'Is NOAA lying when they say: The global annual temperature for combined land and ocean surfaces for 2007... would be the fifth warmest since records began...'

    Not at all, Alan; they're saying that the globe is cooling compared to 2002, 2003, and 2005, with 2004 and 2006 coming in barely cooler than 2007.
  72. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Darryl Williams from Dartmouth, NS, Canada writes: 'Another favourite tactic of Glynnmhor's is to claim that the IPCC scientists don't study the effect of variations of solar radiation...'

    The problem left by the IPCC is that variations in solar irradiance are known to be insufficient to account for the obvious correlations between solar cycle lengths and temperature changes. By concentrating only on irradiance, the IPCC is missing whatever solar factor actually does drive temperatures.
  73. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Darryl Williams from Dartmouth, NS, Canada writes: 'Glynnmhor... calls the IPCC report outdated (it was released in Nov 07!!)...'

    Actually the Fourth Report (the science basis anyway) has been available on the net since June at least. Moreover, since it is a compilation of six years of work, it is necessarily going to be several months, if not years, behind anything current.
  74. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: About the minimum 2007 Ice in Arctic: 'A reduction in clouds was likely a culprit in this summer’s record Arctic meltdown which temporarily opened up the fabled Northwest Passage, scientists announced this week. While Earth’s rising temperatures fueled by global warming are certainly a factor in the Arctic melt, unusual weather patterns this summer also influenced how much of the sea ice melted. One result of these patterns was a decrease in cloud cover, scientists said at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, which would have allowed more sunlight to penetrate Earth’s atmosphere and warm the Arctic ocean waters. New data from NASA satellites observing the western Arctic, where most of the ice loss occurred, showed a 16 percent decrease in cloud coverage this summer compared to 2006. 'There’s been quite dramatic reductions of cloudiness this summer,' said study member Graeme Stephens of Colorado State University. The amount of sunlight from these clearer skies would have been enough to heat ocean waters by 4 degrees Fahrenheit (2.4 degrees Celsius), or enough to melt 1 foot (0.3 meters) of sea ice, the scientists said. 'Clouds are conspiring, they’re playing a role in this,' said study author Jennifer Kay, a post-doctoral research fellow at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. Kay says the result of this work highlights the importance of the influence of weather pattern variability on an already stressed-out Arctic system. 'As Arctic sea ice thins, its extent is more sensitive to year-to-year variability in weather and cloud patterns,' Kay said. 'Our data show that clearer skies this summer allowed more of the sun’s energy to melt the vulnerably thin sea ice and heat the ocean surface.'
  75. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: 'Ed Anger from Canada writes: 'Dont forget that my generation was told that the earth was cooling'

    That's rather blatant hyperbole.'

    Actually, depending on his age, he may well have been growing up at a time when the Earth was cooling.

    After all, until the 1970s global mean temperatures did not exceed those of 1940.
  76. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Moreover, since it is a compilation of six years of work, it is necessarily going to be several months, if not years, behind anything current.'

    As a complation of confirmed science it will necessarily exclude 'leading edge' speculation as well as miss threats which are not well defined such as 'tipping points', rates of sea rise, etc. This should be taken into account in the 'threat assessment' under precautionary principles.
  77. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: About the minimum 2007 Arctic Ice: Of course this was even reported months ago by CBC but not in the GM...: 'WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Arctic sea ice melted to its lowest level ever this week, shattering a record set in 2005 and continuing a trend spurred by human-caused global warming, scientists said on Thursday. 'It's the biggest drop from a previous record that we've ever had and it's really quite astounding,' said Walt Meier, a research scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado.(...) This year's record was caused by a 'perfect storm' of interacting factors, Meier said by telephone. These included a long-running high pressure system that kept skies cloudless over the Arctic, along with a circulation pattern that pushed ice out of the Arctic towards Greenland, instead of letting it circle around the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska as it usually does.'(...)' And yes afterward Mr Meier felt it was necessary to blame it on AGW but high pressure fields and the little cloud coverage has nothing to do with AGW. ' In fact, all what is happening is perfectly in line with what Prof. Marcel Leroux explains: ''When sea-ice is concerned, or any other phenomenon, the (climatological) reflex would be to search a meteorological reason able to explain the melting. In this case what can explain the summer melting of ice, over the eastern side of Arctic, and over its western side, while the central Arctic, in the prolongation of Greenland, still remains iced ? Meteorologically speaking, the reply is : an advection of warm air, and of warm water, from South (Atlantic and Pacific). Since Arctic is not a closed space, explanations of such an intensified advection constrain to examine the whole circulation around the Arctic area. Consequently, it appears unuseful to evoke a 'local' warming or an anomalous radiation which would forget, just, the Central Arctic because meteorological phenomena are interdependant in the framework of general circulation ...' EOM
  78. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Hee hee hee... some of you guys are like exorcists.

    You try to be rid of me by chanting 'The power of Gore compel thee. The power of GORE compel thee. The power of GORE compel thee.' while sprinkling the holy water of insults on me.

    Oh saint Suzuki, cleanse this our Forum of Unbelievers, and preserve it solely for thy Flock!

    Well, I'll continue to reveal the frailties of the prevailing paradigm, whether you appreciate my efforts or not. It remains that warming is no longer occurring, and that the IPCC cannot explain the past temperature changes with its modelling.
  79. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Actually, depending on his age, he may well have been growing up at a time when the Earth was cooling.'

    Yes, but no scientist predicted that it would continue. They understod how 'killer smog' was creating a crisis and that the associated cooling was limited by the short persistence of aerosols. It did lead to the subsequent 'clean air' acts which eliminated the masking by 1975 or so.

    'After all, until the 1970s global mean temperatures did not exceed those of 1940.'

    Not relevant unless you are going to try to blanket the planet in a choking hydrocarbon haze to counter GW. That cure would be worse than the disease..
  80. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Ian St. John from Canada writes:'Yes, but no scientist predicted that [cooling] would continue. They understood how 'killer smog' was creating a crisis and that the associated cooling was limited by the short persistence of aerosols.'

    Actually, they didn't really understand any of it, and the 'clean air act' had nothing to do with warming or cooling; governments of the day were not at all concerned about temperatures.

    All the scientists were very tentative about predicting temperatures, especially since they didn't even have the resources necessary for timely estimation of actual global temperatures.

    If your 'all cooling is caused by aerosols' theory were correct, we should be seeing more cooling in the northern hemisphere than the southern (rather than the reverse), because the largest sources of aerosols are in China and India.
  81. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Hee hee hee... some of you guys are like exorcists.'

    I recently read a description of the 'pacifists dillemma'. Two people are trapped by snow in a mountain valley. At first they eat the local grains and hunt the local animals and are well fed. However one man looks at the food resources and calculates that the valley is not big enough to support them both at the current rate of consumption. He pleads with the other guy to ration the food so that they can last the winter, but the other guy ignores it and just goes on eating. There is enough for one to eat at that rate but not for two. What does he do? Thus, the dilemma. He can't kill himself. He can't kill the other guy. And without the other guy joining in, they will both die of starvation..

    Glynmor is the 'other guy' contentedly wasting resources and serving only his own short term benefit. This always leads to crisis and disasters that could have been avoided.
  82. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'Glynnmor is the 'other guy' contentedly wasting resources...'

    Well, our bandwidth does not seem to have limits close to our consumption, and it is totally reasonable to assume that as we approach those limits, the G&M will take steps to increase it.

    The problem is all in your mind, Ian.
  83. Ian St. John from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Actually, they didn't really understand any of it'

    THEY did, but obviously YOU don't.

    'and the 'clean air act' had nothing to do with warming or cooling; '

    It was not the primary reason for getting rid of the smog but that did NOT change its effect on global temperatures. Physics doesn't care for reasons.

    'All the scientists were very tentative about predicting temperatures, especially since they didn't even have the resources necessary for timely estimation of actual global temperatures.'

    They had estimates but not the confidence of current analysis. Way back in the 1800's Arhennius was able to estimate the warming for a doubling of CO2. It is very well established science.

    'If your 'all cooling is caused by aerosols' theory were correct, '

    Crap. You were speaking of the 1940-1975 period. This mistatement is just a stupid red herring.

    'we should be seeing more cooling in the northern hemisphere than the southern (rather than the reverse), because the largest sources of aerosols are in China and India.'

    Aerosols are rather regional in effect because of low persistence. It (almost certainly) does affect climate on the Asian subcontinent.
  84. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Dear Canadian from Cole Harbour, isn't it funny to see how DATA and FACTS make the Global Walarmists switch subjects and of course resort to personal attacks... .' If the science and its methodology was so sound why would these groups need to use journalists, rock musicians and other bells and whistles and deceptions such as 'climate change instead of AGW' -climate change is continuously happening while AGW is an unproven theory based on statistical modeling and tentatively explained by isolating local observations from their aerological context- to deceive uneducated people?.' Finally if those who are interested in facts and the context of these facts are continuously labelled 'deniers', 'big oil' etc... would that indeed suggest that the so called consensus is another fallacy shoved down our throats: really who would care of a small bunch IF the consensus was real. No there is no consensus and the UN Bali adventure was another proof of the political pressure exerted by Chaude Durit and his hunchmen..' Oh Well: today is Christmas Day so to all here, Merry Christmas and let's hope for a Happy New Year free of the AGW propaganda since now the Peace Nobel Prize is used deceptively as 'Nobel prize winning IPCC' just as if this political award was comparable to a Nobel in Physics! So far no IPCC science has won any real Nobel in Physics or Chemistry... .'
  85. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Ian St. John from Canada writes:'Aerosols are rather regional in effect because of low persistence.'

    Yet you've repeatedly claimed that these same aerosols were responsible for the well known globally widespread cooling after 1940.

    It can't be both, Ian.

    And no, scientists in the 1970s were not in agreement even as to what the global average temperatures were, much less why. And at present not even the IPCC concurs with your hypothesis that removal of smogs eliminated the cooling of the post 1940 period. The discussions in their Fourth Report on aerosols constantly harp on the substantial uncertainties remaining as to both their global distribution and their effects. The lack of an instrumental record for the post 1940 cooling period, for example, makes any attempt to establish the role of aerosol effects dubious at best.
  86. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Sprinkles of holy water fresh from the teacup.