Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: neverdem
The Southern ice coverage isn't the same as Northern, and the author subtly notes it by the comparisons of land ice. Thicknesses are also important...the pattern displayed is what would be expected from war4ming. That is, Antarctic ice sheet thinning and spreading, while the Arctic ice coverage decreases.

That doesn't mean it's significant or anthropogenic, but it's important to note that this is a lot more complex than most people realize.

6 posted on 12/11/2009 12:19:40 AM PST by Gondring (Paul Revere would have been flamed as a naysayer troll and told to go back to Boston.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Gondring

There are also the Arctic submarine volcanoes to consider.


9 posted on 12/11/2009 1:58:56 AM PST by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Gondring
The Southern ice coverage isn't the same as Northern, and the author subtly notes it by the comparisons of land ice. Thicknesses are also important...the pattern displayed is what would be expected from war4ming. That is, Antarctic ice sheet thinning and spreading, while the Arctic ice coverage decreases.

Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away

That doesn't mean it's significant or anthropogenic, but it's important to note that this is a lot more complex than most people realize.

I initially trained as a chemist. Scientists are supposed to be sceptical, but also keep an open mind. Forget that none of their vaunted climate models predicted the lack of warming for at least the last ten years. Forget that the record from previous ice ages and interglacial periods shows that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations comes after the atmosphere warmed by about seven to eight hundred years.

The climategate emails have shown ample reasons to doubt the veracity of the temperature data. There's also ample reason to doubt the carbon dioxide data.The samples were mostly collected from the worst locations, i.e. active volcanos, and IIRC, the official government records are a farce.

Historically, the conservatives are the gang usually preaching the precautionary principle The only instance of the left observing the precautionary principle that I can recall is when they want to deny the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms protected by the Second Amendment. So I have to ask myself why is the left now "Going Cheney on Climate"?.

Now I'm not denying carbon dioxide absorbs energy from solar infrared radiation, but the earth has a number of carbon dioxide sinks, and how does the greenhouse analogy make sense when earth's atmosphere expands and contracts largely in response to external forces?

There's a clinical maxim in medicine about making a diagnosis: "When you hear the sound of hoofbeats, don't think zebras." It's probably a horse if your not in Africa. In other words, if you want to consider a zebra, rule out a horse. In the case of global warming, you have to rule out natural variation. That's a tall order when we know the record includes the Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, etc. That's even tougher when the correlation with sunspot activity is considered as well as the correlations with ocean currents and temperature data.

IMHO, I think this Warmageddon mongering is a horse called fraud. It's been fed by scientists made into prostitutes with $80 billion in grants from taxpayers, useful idiots on the left with no understanding of science and politicos who see a gravy train and lust for power.

19 posted on 12/11/2009 11:57:51 AM PST by neverdem (Xin loi minh oi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson