DVD Talk
Are humans melting the North Pole? [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Are humans melting the North Pole?


movielib
10-14-05, 11:15 AM
For the last few months it seems not any week goes by without at least one prominent story about how the arctic is in a massive meltdown, it's hotter than it has ever been up north, the polar bears are all going to die implying we have to destroy our economies by limiting CO2 emissions or we're all going to die like the polar bears.

(Funny thing, the mainstream press doesn't bombard us with stories about the antarctic, which is cooling.)

Here is an analysis with some context:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172188,00.html

What Arctic Warming?
Thursday, October 13, 2005
By Steven Milloy

The New York Times appeared to try a new tactic in its campaign to convince the public that global warming is real. But don’t let the Times’ Oct. 10 report on the economic upside of Arctic melting confuse you -- there still isn’t any evidence that human activity is melting the polar regions.

In its article entitled, “As Polar Ice Turns to Water, Dreams of Treasure Abound,” the Times reported that a shrinking summer time Arctic ice cap is spurring “nothing less than a great rush for virgin territory and natural resources worth hundreds of billions of dollars.”

The Times spotlighted, for example, a Denver entrepreneur who purchased a “derelict Hudson Bay port from the Canadian government in 1997” for $7. The entrepreneur, who estimates the port could bring in as much as $100 million per year, “is no more to blame than anyone else for a meltdown at the top of the world that threatens Arctic mammals and ancient traditions and lends credibility to dark visions about global warming,” reported the Times.

“It’s the positive side of global warming, if there is a positive side,” the transportation minister of Manitoba told the Times.

Now, I’m not sure what the Times’ shift in thinking is with the article -- and after more than a decade of consistent gloom-and-doom reporting and editorializing on global warming, I would imagine that the Green-leaning newspaper does not intend to rethink its position on the scare -- but it’s going to take more than the mere economic exploitation of a shrinking polar ice cap to establish human activity as the cause of the melting.

At JunkScience.com, we analyzed surface temperature data collected by NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies and prepared temperature graphs to underscore this point.

If you look at the temperature trends for the Arctic region since 1880, it appears that the Arctic generally warmed somewhat until about 1938. From 1938 until about 1966, the Arctic cooled to about its 1918 temperature level. Then, between 1966 and 2003, the Arctic warmed up to just shy of its 1938 temperature. But in 2004, the Arctic temperature again spiked downward.

http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic1880-2004_1.gif

Now if the 1880-1938 warming trend had continued up until this day, there certainly would be some significant warming in the Arctic region to talk about. From 1918 to 1938, alone, the Arctic warmed by 2.5 degrees Centigrade. But the actual temperature trend is much different, showing that there’s been hardly any overall temperature change in the Arctic since 1938.

http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic1880-2004_2.gif

Not only does the temperature data contradict the claim that global warming is overtaking the Arctic, but data on greenhouse gas concentrations ought to drive a spike through the heart of the claim.

During the warming period from 1880 to 1938, it’s estimated that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide – the bugbear of greenhouse gases to global warming worriers – increased by an estimated 20 parts per million. But from 1938 to 2003 – a period of essentially no increase in Arctic warming – the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increased another 60 parts per million. It doesn’t seem plausible, then, that Arctic temperatures are significantly influenced by atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases.

And even when the Arctic re-warmed between 1966 and 2003, the warming occurred much less aggressively (about 50 percent less) than the 1918-1938 warming and at about the same rate as the period 1880-1938, despite much higher greenhouse gas levels in the 1966-2003 time frame.

http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic1880-2004_4.gif

http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic1880-2004_5.gif

Global warming worriers can take no comfort from South Pole data either.

Over the last 30 years, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide increased by about 15 percent, from about 328 parts per million to about 372 parts per million. But the Antarctic temperature trend for that period indicates a slight cooling. This observation contrasts sharply with the relatively steep Antarctic warming observed from 1949 to 1974, which was accompanied by a much more modest increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Antarctic1903-2004.gif

The hypothesis of global warming alarmism posits that increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide should lead to increasing temperatures, particularly with respect to Antarctica’s super-cold, super-dry air mass. But the data seem to indicate just the opposite.

Getting back to the New York Times article, so why is the Arctic ice cap shrinking if air temperatures aren’t really warming in any significant way? Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor wrote that “Arctic sea ice has undergone significant changes in the last 1,000 years, even before the mid-20th century ‘greenhouse enhancement.’ Current conditions appear to be well within historical variability.”

No doubt many of the Times’ readers do have “dark visions” of global warming, but that seems to be due more to the newspaper’s consistent skewing and omission of facts over the last decade rather than the facts themselves.

The U.S. Geological Survey says that 25 percent of the world oil and gas resources are in the Arctic region. We need those resources desperately and if a little melting helps us get at them more easily – particularly since Mother Nature seems to be at the controls – we should embrace whatever natural cycles make possible.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com, is adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and is the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).

kvrdave
10-14-05, 11:35 AM
We're all gonna' die and you know it. :grunt:

Thanks for the article. Nice to see graphs. :)

al_bundy
10-14-05, 11:37 AM
the same reason we told stupid officers in the army why their radios didn't work


sunspots

AGuyNamedMike
10-17-05, 07:59 AM
the same reason we told stupid officers in the army why their radios didn't work


sunspots

:up:

good times.

DodgingCars
10-17-05, 10:21 AM
movielib,

I'm curious... While some scientists may certainly have another agenda... How are they reading these results. It's hard for me to see how they can see an overall warming trend due to human causes in the Arctic when there really hasn't been any shift in temperature for nearly 70 years.

But it also seems obvious to me that climate scientists aren't stupid... and even though some may have an agenda -- I'm having a hard time grasping how they are seeing this warming trend -- especially a warming trend due to human influence.

DVD Polizei
10-17-05, 10:33 AM
I blame the warming on the increased copulation of seal sex.

I need to get a federal grant and <s>justify my claims</s> find out if this is true.

reverie
10-17-05, 12:29 PM
Everyone's missing the real question: What about Santa, and how will this impact us getting presents at Christmas?

bhk
10-17-05, 12:42 PM
And at the same time, humans are freezing Antartica. Diabolical.

al_bundy
10-17-05, 12:44 PM
Everyone's missing the real question: What about Santa, and how will this impact us getting presents at Christmas?

santa is relocating to the south pole where the evil humans haven't had a chance to ruin things yet

VinVega
10-17-05, 12:48 PM
santa is relocating to the south pole where the evil humans haven't had a chance to ruin things yet
Wouldn't the hole in the Ozone layer get him there? :(

movielib
10-17-05, 06:16 PM
movielib,

I'm curious... While some scientists may certainly have another agenda... How are they reading these results. It's hard for me to see how they can see an overall warming trend due to human causes in the Arctic when there really hasn't been any shift in temperature for nearly 70 years.

But it also seems obvious to me that climate scientists aren't stupid... and even though some may have an agenda -- I'm having a hard time grasping how they are seeing this warming trend -- especially a warming trend due to human influence.
I must admit I'm as baffled as you about the way the alarmists act.

They claim they are the vast majority and the skeptics are a few fringe nuts who get financing from business and industry. They talk about the millions the skeptics get in grants; but they never mention the billions they get, mostly from environmental groups and government for their work (this may have a lot to do with it; if they say there's no crisis, their funding will dry up like the Sahara).

I'm no longer even convinced the alarmists are the majority at all, let alone the vast majority. They say it and the mainstream press parrots it like the good little environmentalist lackeys they are but I'm learning about more and more skeptics all the time. Both sides have used petitions (they don't prove anything about how dire a threat global warming is or whether it's mostly caused by humans but they do give us a hint regarding the positions of large numbers of scientists). The skeptics' petitions have drawn far more support, both among scientists in general and from those whose specialties lie in relevant areas such as climatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric physicists etc. By far the most successful petition is this (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm) one signed by more than 17,000 scientists including 2,660 whose expertise is in relevant fields and more than 5,000 whose specialties are in life sciences and who are qualified to assess the effects of increased CO2 on biological organisms (http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm). Of course, you never hear any of this stuff from the New York Times or CNN.

I do think that, slowly but surely, the truth is coming out. I think the alarmists are on the defensive and this is shown by their ever more shrill attacks on the skeptics and their attempts to marginalize them. Plus, the abject failure of the Kyoto agreement (in effect since February) because of the inability and reluctance of any signers to actually follow it because it will ruin their economies has pretty much gutted it. It is also being recognized that even if it is held to it will do virtually nothing to prevent or even slow with any significance the natural warming trend we are in. See The Kyoto Count Up Clock (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm) which just today, after eight months, passed $100 billion to save us slightly more than a thousandth of a degree celsius in temperature. And those numbers are super conservative.

That's my view.

al_bundy
10-17-05, 09:00 PM
if this was 1000 years ago people would be praying to God for this warming trend because it would bring increased food production. In the 21st century we instead try to bring on another ice age.

SuprVgeta
10-17-05, 11:42 PM
if this was 1000 years ago people would be praying to God for this warming trend because it would bring increased food production. In the 21st century we instead try to bring on another ice age.
More like: in the 21st century people would be praying to God for warming to continue for increased food production, meanwhile the ACLU sues those people for the using the word "God."

DodgingCars
10-18-05, 10:11 AM
movielib,

I think you're right about the skeptism gaining larger support. I remember just a few years ago hearing most people speak of global warming as an absolute fact... now more and more I hear people saying "If you believe in global warming..." acknowledging that there is another point of view.

Yes I realize that's anecdotal, but I just mean that it seems that there has been a cultural shift (in my experience) to acknowleding that there is a debate.

al_bundy
10-18-05, 10:25 AM
things are different when your energy bills double or triple and some talking heads on TV are saying that you should be paying more

Jason
10-18-05, 05:22 PM
Hogwash. It's well known that human beings are incabable of having any impact whatsoever on the planet.

http://www.northern.org/artman/publish/images/true_north_photo_4_big.jpg


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0