Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Arctic sea ice melt - natural or man-made?

Posted on 9 June 2008 by John Cook

Arctic sea ice has declined steadily since the 1970s. However, the 2007 summer saw a dramatic drop in sea ice extent, smashing the previous record minimum set in 2005 by 20%. This has been widely cited as proof of global warming. However, a popular mantra by climatologists is not to read too much into short term fluctuations - climate change is more concerned with long term trends. So how much of Arctic melt is due to natural variability and how much was a result of global warming?

The long term trend in Arctic sea ice

Global warming affects Arctic sea ice in various ways. Warming air temperatures have been observed over the past 3 decades by drifting buoys and radiometer satellites (Rigor 2000, Comiso 2003). Downward longwave radiation has increased, as expected when air temperature, water vapor and cloudiness increases (Francis 2006). More ocean heat is being transported into Arctic waters (Shimada 2006).

As sea ice melts, positive feedbacks enhance the rate of sea ice loss. Positive ice-albedo feedback has become a dominant factor since the mid-to-late 1990s (Perovich 2007). Older perennial ice is thicker and more likely to survive the summer melt season. It reflects more sunlight and transmits less solar radiation to the ocean. Satellite measurements have found over the past 3 decades, the amount of perennial sea ice has been steadily declining (Nghiem 2007). Consequently, the mean thickness of ice over the Arctic Ocean has thinned from 2.6 meters in March 1987 to 2.0 meters in 2007 (Stroeve 2008).

 

Global warming has a clearly observed, long term effect on Arctic sea ice. In fact, although climate models predict that Arctic sea ice will decline in response to greenhouse gas increases, the current pace of retreat at the end of the melt season is exceeding the models’ forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007).

 


Figure 1: September Arctic Sea Ice Extent (thin, light blue) with long term trend (thick, dark blue). Sea ice extent is defined as the surface area enclosed by the sea ice edge (where sea ice concentration falls below 15%).

What caused the dramatic ice loss in 2007?

The sudden drop in sea ice extent in 2007 exceeded most expectations. The summer sea ice extent was 40% below 1980's levels and 20% below the previous record minimum set in 2005. The major factor in the 2007 melt was anomalous weather conditions.

An anticyclonic pattern formed in early June 2007 over the central Arctic Ocean, persisting for 3 months (Gascard 2008). This was coupled with low pressures over central and western Siberia. Persistent southerly winds between the high and low pressure centers gave rise to warmer air temperatures north of Siberia that promoted melt. The wind also transported ice away from the Siberian coast.

In addition, skies under the anticyclone were predominantly clear. The reduced cloudiness meant more than usual sunlight reached the sea ice, fostering strong sea ice melt (Kay 2008).

Both the wind patterns and reduced cloudliness were anomalies but not unprecedented. Similar patterns occurred in 1987 and 1977. However, past occurances didn't have the same dramatic effect as in 2007. The reason for the severe ice loss in 2007 was because the ice pack had suffered two decades of thinning and area reduction, making the sea ice more vulnerable to current weather conditions (Nghiem 2007).

Conclusion

Recent discussion about ocean cycles have focused on how internal variability can slow down global warming. The 2007 Arctic melt is a sobering example of the impact when internal variability enhances the long term global warming trend.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Comments 151 to 200 out of 529:

  1. PS Alarmism is not science, skepticism is. Re: "You don't have any say." A little hostile are we? The lies come from both deniers and alarmists, those of us who are skeptical do not need to lie, we simply ask for proof of your hypothesis. Make a prediction that pans out for a change, just once, and you will convince us skeptics. So far it's a no hitter.
    0 0
  2. Quietman,You have a side. That much is obvious. Show me the lies from the 'alarmists' side dude. Are you saying that the graph provided in the "it's the sun" thread on this website is a lie? Prove it. You seem to be claiming that the info on this website is a lie. Prove it. That's all I'm saying. And once again, let Jim Cook decide which one of us is out of line. I'll abide by his judgement.
    0 0
  3. John Cook. I'm sorry.
    0 0
  4. I pointed out lies that you deniers have told. Show me tne lies that the scientists have told. Come on man, it shouldn't be that hard.
    0 0
  5. Quitman, put up or shut up!
    0 0
  6. Lee Grable See Al Gore, between 10 and 35 lies depending on whose opinion you read. See Any paper that contains the words "global warming" contains lies. As for truths See any paper on any subject that contains the words "climate change" or "climate shift" or just about anything other than "global warming". An example Kay et. al. (linked by john) is an honest paper because it does not attempt to alarm or place blame on AGW. Good science does not accept a hypothesis as fact, it accepts it as a hypothesis until it has been tested. A hypothesis such as AGW can be tested by prediction. It has been and it has failed the test. Instead of moving the goal post to meet the hypothesis, make the hypothesis more realistic as Dr. Spencer has pointed out. Dr. Spencer is obviously more familiar with the science than you are so why do you choose to believe "Or we are all toast" Hansen over a calm and somewhat humerous Spencer.
    0 0
  7. And please do not call me dude. That is a california hippy term and I find both despicable.
    0 0
  8. RC has an interesting post on how Spencer works sometimes. Very telling: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/langswitch_lang/de Another good one about Spencer: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/01/spencer_is_totally_off_his_roc.php. "Humerous" indeed. What exactly are the criteria to establish that Spencer should be more trusted than Hansen? Spencer and Christy had some errors in their 98 (I believe) paper on MSU data. Errors were later corrected but S&C let skeptics used the wrong data for a while. Deltoid had a post on the revised numbers: http://timlambert.org/2005/07/spencer/ Those links are to blogs posts, but each treats of Spencer publication/work. Quietman, hippies are now in their 60's and never used the word "dude." It actually belongs to college crowds all over. I'm sure everyone in California would be interested to know why their state is "despicable."
    0 0
  9. Quitman, put up or shut up!
    0 0
  10. I've pointed out specific lies told by the deniers side. Point out SPECIFIC lies told on this website. And gosh, I'm really sorry that I called you dude. I know how germaine that is to this disscusion.
    0 0
  11. And why is it that when one of you denialists get backed into a corner, you bring up Al Gore? Last I looked, he's a politician, not a scientist.
    0 0
  12. Oh yeah, one more observation Quietman, are you claiming that the IPCC doesn't employ good science? Your whole position is predicated on the assumption that those scientists are either incompetent, or liers. Which is it?
    0 0
  13. #153 Lee Grable >> "John Cook. I'm sorry. " So you should be.
    0 0
  14. #163. Sorry dude.
    0 0
  15. Philippe I am 60 years old and I heard the word used by a californian in Viet Nam in 1968. He had joined my company shortly after the Tet Offensive. Nelieve it or not they did draft hippies. PS I never look at Real Climate anymore after finding out how their site is funded and by whom. It is THE alarmist site.
    0 0
  16. Sorry about the spelling, my eyes are going fast.
    0 0
  17. Lee Grable The IPCC is a political body and like all politicians they lie a lot. The lie is "Global Warming". The warming is not Global, it is regional, and caused by heat escaping from the mantle at subduction zones and ridges. I have placed many links on the "Volcanos" thread that back up my hypothesis. The cause of tectonics is gravitational stress. The Earth has a sizeable moon to keep the tectonics going. Dr. Rhodes Fairbridge explained how gravitational forces affect sunspots by affecting the suns barycenter. Jupiter has the largest effect but the effect is increased during planetary alignments, particularly the inner planets and the gas giants. The TSI stopped leading temps in 1975. 1975 was a near complete planetary alignment and 1976 was the full alignment that is quite rare (most people will never see one). There was a lot of speculation about earthquakes and other forms of vulcanism at the time but nothing drastic happened ... that they could detect at the time. But something quite drastic did happen and vulcanism/tectonic movement has increased and much of it is increased activity in the subduction zones, hence the record El Nino's (ENSO) that we have been experiencing since. Chris lists the years of the El Ninos higher in this thread in an attempt to prove me wrong but the El Nino is cyclical, it has happened for a very long time. It's strength is what has changed. The same goes for the other oscillations. The South Atlantic anomally is reducing the magnetic field from eastern South America to western Africa. Tropical storms have been forming farther east, closer to the red sea, making Hurricane forcasting more difficult. Have you even read the other comments on this site? PS You asked who is the liar. The spokesman for the alarmists is Al Gore, and he tells lies. The scientist who brought this up is "we are all toast" Hansen (Real Climate) and he has lost his cool and who knows what else. Sorry, but "we are all toast" is a lie.
    0 0
  18. Re: "Oh yeah, one more observation Quietman, are you claiming that the IPCC doesn't employ good science? Your whole position is predicated on the assumption that those scientists are either incompetent, or liers. Which is it?" A little of both. The IPCC has no (zero) scientists. That is not how things work. SELECT scientists submit and review papers dealing primarily with what the effects of AGW will be. They do not do any work on proving the hypothesis at all because they have assumed it to be fact. The IPCC then deletes any papers or comments that do not support AGW. It's kind of like a high school click, outsiders have no voice and papers submitted are simply rejected. This is BIG money and the IPCC isn't going to let the gravey train stop any time soon.
    0 0
  19. PS Lee you have not pointed out any lies at all. Just because it's not in the bible does not make it an untruth.
    0 0
  20. Philippe I know about the tricks they are playing on Spencer. He's eccentric but not nuts. They are trying to discredit him any way that they can. But who sounds nuttier? Another NASA scientist tried to discredit Dr. Fairbridge in a discussion by saying his papers are not peer reviewed. That is an alarmist tactic that will soon backfire. Papers that they refused based on lack of peer review will soon be printed because they are turning out to be factual. The IPCC can only supress the facts for so long. That is why they are now looking into solar forcing and why you now get a lot of hits instead of just one when doing a search for "The Solar Jerk". Eyes are finally opening.
    0 0
  21. Re: I'm sure everyone in California would be interested to know why their state is "despicable." Ask anyone from the other 49.
    0 0
  22. Quietman, I have pointed out SPECIFIC lies. I've provided references to back up my claims. The IPCC is headed up by the 600 leading climate scientists in the the world. Deny that if you can. BTW, my user name is my real name.
    0 0
  23. My user name is my real name Quietman, as is every other person on this website who speaks the truth.
    0 0
  24. Lee Re: " The IPCC is headed up by the 600 leading climate scientists in the the world. " That is your opinion, and theirs. The best have already left the IPCC because they were true scientists who refused to have their work altered. This line of argument is both childish and foolish. When you have a valid point to make I will respond otherwise I will not longer reply to you. DO your homework and think for yourself. Since the hypothesis of AGW was first proposed many other factors have been determined. Read all of the threads. To blindly accept the word of the IPCC is to accept AGW on faith. I do not believe in blind faith. As for lies, yes deniers have lied. But not skeptical statements. You have to learn how to discern truth from falsehood and more importantly accept that no one is infallable, not even Hansen.
    0 0
  25. PS People use real names on different sites and handles on others to avoid witch hunts. The alarmists are the witch hunters in the AGW argument and many are fanatics so skeptics use a handle. I use my real name on sites that do not have the crazies around to hassle me.
    0 0
  26. I'm not sure the IPCC has any other choice but to lie at times. Well, not lie exactly, more correctly they are forced to be more and more inventive with their AGW hypothesis. A typical example can be found here;- Former IPCC Member Slams UN Scientists' Lack of Geologic Knowledge No wonder more and more scientists are defecting from the sinking ship.
    0 0
  27. Quietman. You do have a side and I think you have a bias. The term global warming alarmist is inherently judgmental and, if I may say so, negative. The phrase global warming denier or skeptic is more neutral. Surely you can see this. But even the term "skeptic" is often misused when discussing GW or AGW. A skeptic is "a person inclined to question or doubt" an accepted opinion. But most people who might call themselves skeptics simply do not believe in GW or AGW. I've tried to honestly debate some of these "skeptics" and they don't merely question or doubt GW; they simply do not and will not believe, and they can't quite explain why. And this is more than just a matter of semantics. It goes to the heart of what you believe or don't believe and whether you are being honest with yourself about your beliefs and disbeliefs. As you have guessed, I'm a GW/AGW believer. I'm not sold on the details yet. There is still much to learn. Real believers and real skeptics could work this through honestly. But with all the name-calling and accusations (esp. on the Internet), there seems to be all too little real debate. For example, your referring to someones post: "That is your opinion, and theirs. The best have already left the IPCC because they were true scientists who refused to have their work altered. This line of argument is both childish and foolish. ..." is not helpful. When did you become the sole arbiter of what line of argument is "childish and foolish"? I think you need to take your own advice about doing your homework. Mainly, read technical papers and stay away from right wing blogs.
    0 0
  28. HealthySkeptic: NewsBusters is exactly the type of source you do not read for GW information. Their claim “Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias” is the dead giveaway. GW and AGW are not ideological debates; they are scientific debates. Read the science.
    0 0
  29. koyaanisqatsi If you look through this website you will see that I do not deny AGW but accept it as a valid hypothesis. My argument has been and continues to be the validity of the alarmist calims specifically for CO2 induced AGW. I can not see the climate sensitivity as high and do see other factors that are more likely causes. I certainly do not deny warming but I am greatly skeptical due to personal observations in my travels and the combined observations of other travellers that it is indeed global, hence the argument as to the accuracy and validity of the measurements as quoted. My "side" if you want to call it that, is Anti-alarmist, although I consider it anti-terrorist or anti-fundamentalist. John Cook is pro AGW but not an alarmist and for the most part I agree with his articles and comments. There is a difference between "taking sides" and being open minded.
    0 0
  30. PS Sorry about the spelling, I am disabled and my eyesight varies throughout the day. The B/W contrast blurs the letters so I don't see the errors untils they are on the orange field.
    0 0
  31. "Lee Grable at 19:05 PM on 2 September 2008 My user name is my real name Quietman, as is every other person on this website who speaks the truth." Some of us are protecting real scientists working in the field from pc witch hunts. When you head an organization to which many researchers belong it is dangerous to be honest and outspoken on this issue. The IPCC is a political organization it is most certainly not the "600" leading scientists in the field, nor is it holy writ or even accepted by the contributors. Leaving all of that aside the original point of this thread "arctic see ice melt..."; since sea ice is up 13% this year in the arctic and remains at or near the highest recorded in the Antarctic, should we assume cooling has settled in? What next endangered polar bears?
    0 0
  32. koyaanisqatsi Re: "Mainly, read technical papers and stay away from right wing blogs." The same is true of left wing blogs. I do read the papers, I just do not attempt to interpret them in any way. I take them for exactly what they say. Peer review today has become political and basically useless. Both the deniers and alarmists use only the like minded to do the review so why even bother. I have read many non-peer reviewed papers that have proven to be true, why should today be any better than yesterday. Was Charles Darwin's work peer reviewed? Its a way for some to shut others out, right or wrong. Dr. Fairbridge wrote many papers that were not peer reviewed. The Fairbridge Curve has been determined factual despite a consensus against him (it was named in derision). Dr. Spencer did a good article on CO2 sensitivity. I don't give a rats ass if it was peer reviewed or not. Spencer's reputation is a good one despite mistakes, it only proves that he's human. As for which blogs are right or left wing I don't know. If the blog is political in any manner I avoid it.
    0 0
  33. koyaanisqatsi And you are correct that I do have a bias, I am adamantly anti-alarmist, anti-activist, anti-fundamentalist, anti-terrorist and anti-communist and definately a conservationist and environmentalist. Above all I believe in honesty and being a native New Yorker tend to be frank. I am a stout defender of Charles Darwin's hypothesis and the Theory of Evolution. If that is upsetting to some I really don't care. I state my views honestly and do not like being called a liar. Now we can talk.
    0 0
  34. koyaanisqatsi: Did you even read the article at the link I posted? Prof. Tom Segalstad is a well respected scientist, and one who has left the IPCC because he simply doesn't believe that their "science" is correct. Unlike yourself, I'm not one to dismiss the view of a respected scientist simply because it is reported by a source whose politics I don't agree with. No matter where you get your news, the undeniable fact remains that more and more IPCC scientists are abandoning the sinking ship. With respect to the term "alarmist", there simply is no better word to describe the behavior of many AGW proponents. You advise me to "read the science". Well, I suggest you widen your choice of scientific reading matter and take your own advice. The writing is on the wall. Good luck...
    0 0
  35. What the heck are you talking about WA? The Northwest and Northeast passages are open at the same time. Arctic sea ice extent experienced the fastest decline ever observed for a single August this year. The statement that Arcic sea ice is up 13% is about the most misleading and dishonest BS you could possibly come up with. 13% above what? The 1979-2000 average? What data are you using? I assume that you are trying to say that it is 13% more than last year at the same date, notwithstanding the fact that last year had a pefect storm of weather conditions leading to the greatest melt ever observed (27% below average). That 13% is probably no longer correct as of now anyway. It looks more likely now than at any other time this year that the 07 minimum could be exceeded, even though the exceptional weather conditions that caused last year's melt did not repeat. Meanwhile the Antarctic sea ice has not experienced any statistically significant change, but ice shelves are falling like flies, the latest is the Wilkins. Interestingly, the Wilkins ice shelf has seen its worst collapse in the Austral winter. I understand one who is skeptical, but don't go around throwing BS, it's almost as annoying as conspiracy theory rants. http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/denial/ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080710115142.htm Quietman, your characerization of scientific peer-review is grotesque. Einstein's work was peer-reviewed, even his very daring first relativity paper in 1905. Some doubted the validity, because they did not understand the maths. Those who did embraced it. Darwin does not need you to defend anything, nature is his advocate and nature does not care about human opinion at all. By the way, I asked around about that California thing, haven't got anything yet but people looking at me with round eyes. It's pretty sad that one can reach your age and lack wisdom so much as to call a place despicable, as if everything and everyone there was beyond hope. Loose the rancor, it'll do nothing but clog your arteries.
    0 0
  36. Philippe I guess that you had to be there. Watch some old news clips about Viet Nam and how we were greeted as we arrived home. First stop for many of us was california. I lived there for several years, near LA, so I speak from experience. When I got back east the reverse was true. The attitude then, as now, was anything to help.
    0 0
  37. PS Peer review is not required for the private sector, results are all that count. Peer review is required for academics for good reason but it has been and is being abused.
    0 0
  38. PPS Now more than ever Darwin needs to be defended.
    0 0
  39. Philippe On the cracking ice shelf. Are you aware of the major recent earthquake? Antarctica is not a single plate. That shelf rests on a smaller plate and the plate recently shifted along the fault with the larger plate, about the same time as the china quake.
    0 0
  40. Reality is the only test and is what defends Darwin now better than anything. It does not matter to Darwin (who is dead) or to reality that armies of superstitious people attack evolution, its validity stands regardless. It matters to us because of the social implications of having irrational superstitious people designing school curricula and shaping policies. It's not Darwin or evolution that needs to be defended, it's ourselves, really. By the way, the immense majority (which is not saying much) of creationism or I.D. "scientific" stuff out there is non published, why do you think that is? Working in the private sector and not having to peer-review your work does not mean the work is better or more interesting. Most of it is so specialized in a given area of application that it would not be of great interest to a science journal, except a specialized journal on that particular area; there are plenty of those and private sector scientists publish more than you describe. However, when they see that they're on to something really interesting, guess what, they publish in a major journal. It happens a lot in chemistry and pharmacological research. It happened to Penzias and Wilson, and many others. Peer-review is a necessary but not sufficient condition. It is a minimum and by no means a guarantee of validity, but scientists know the value of it for both personal recognition and fostering of their field. Newton waited years to publish his gravitation work because he did not have all the data to make an iron clad case (even at that, Mercury was still a bother). As hard as he believed in a unified theory, Einstein could not publish on it and he did not try. As uncomfortable as he was with Quantum (on which he was perfectly fluent), he did not question the validity of the theory itself either and had major publications on it. When scientists believe that they really have an insight into reality but can't back it up solidly, they write a book, or an op-ed, or whatever. The insight might be perfectly valid, or not. When they have the full deal, they publish. By the way, it's not because a researcher is "respected" that he can't be wrong or somewhat nuts. Newton is a case in point with his obsession with Alchemy. Spencer's published work is interesting and does not do that much to question the acquired knowledge of climate science to date. What transpires of it in press releases or in the right wing media is another story. His non peer-reviewed work is not published because it would not pass review and for good reasons. By the way, peer-review abuse swings both ways, i.e. the Soon-Baliunas fiasco. Spencer and Christy encouraged politically motivated use of data that they knew to be erroneous for years, and did not correct their work, leaving that task to others. Trust Spencer more if you want, but don't try to convince me I should.
    0 0
  41. Quietman, the recent break up is only part of the story. WIS lost 425square km to melting in Feb-March this year. It is the subject of much research that, to my knowledge does not mention seismic earthquakes as a significant factor. Other ice shelves that have collapsed include Wordie, Mueller, Jones, Larsen A and B. All earthquakes? In the years leading to its collapse, LarsenB lost 18 meters of ice to melting from the bottom. Ice shelves collapse as a result of a process, not a single event. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;271/5250/788 http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/2/341/2008/tcd-2-341-2008.pdf http://www.phys.uu.nl/~broeke/home_files/MB_pubs_pdf/2005_vdB_GRL.pdf
    0 0
  42. You statement that Antarctica is not one plate is inaccurate. It is one very large plate, with boundaries with the Pacific, Nazca, Scotia, African and Indo-Australian plates.
    0 0
  43. Dunno what earthquake you're talking about. There was one in West A. in August, after the July WIS collapse. There was one in July, around 5 magnitude and very, very far away. http://www.gdacs.org Enough blogging, I have real stuff to do.
    0 0
  44. Philippe As usual I agree with much that you say. But If you check out the paleomaps at Palaeos.com you can readily see the plates that make up Antarctica. If you follow the last link I placed in the Volcanos thread it explains why where the Antarctic heat is generated. PS The need to defend Darwin and the ToE in general is precisely that the educational system itself is under attack by fundamentalists. If they get their way science education will be even worse than it has been since the 1960s when the standards were lowered.
    0 0
  45. I left out the "and" between why and where, sorry.
    0 0
  46. PS Generally, anywhere you find a mountain range you will also find a fault line or a subduction zone. The other place to look is major rivers as they often follow a fault that has rifted.
    0 0
  47. PPS My field also has research papers. The SAE has it's own journal and annually publish the collection in hard cover for reference. The difference is that in the private sector many of us can not publish the results of research as the knowledge gained is deemed proprietary. Hence, when I was working I had to publish any articles under an alias and be very careful not to reveal any company secrets.
    0 0
  48. HealthySkeptic, Regarding your comment at #184, I did read the article at the link provided. It's the article and Noel Sheppard that I dismiss. His first statement is pure hyperbole and should be dismissed: "With each passing day, more and more current and former members of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are stepping out of the shadows to suggest that this group’s alarmist conclusions concerning global warming are more based in myth than science." Really? If true, there would be no IPCC scientists left that were not skeptics. The reader of the article, if they even care, will have a difficult time separating Sheppard's comments about what the IPCC said from what the IPCC actually did say (or write). I have every reason to doubt Sheppard's motives in writing such an article. I assume that whatever Tom V. Segalstad said was said in good faith. But his comments have been taken out of context and put in Sheppard's context (filtered by Lawrence Solomon, it turns out). Reread the article and tell me definitely who wrote what...much of the text is Sheppard's but is indented (but w/o quotes) to appear as if said or wrote by the IPCC. Some of the text appears in quotes after the indented text and is probably Segalstad's own words, but proceeded by Sheppard's comments. The writing style confusion is intended. OK, rereading the Sheppard(just a small business owner), he's simply restating much of Lawrence Solomon's Canadian Nation Post (Financial Post) article. It's not clear where Solomon got his Segalstad quotes. Did he interview Segalstad? He doesn't really say. Solomon is just a journalist. So try http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/esef0.htm to sort through what Prof. Segalstad did say and what he meant when he said it. Why should others have to do your literature search for you? Like I said, don't rely on NewsBusters.org. Go to the source.
    0 0
  49. Quietman, I'm anti-alarmist as well, but I define an alarmist as someone who predicts the end of the world if we act to prevent AGW. If we fail to act to prevent AGW, these alarmists may be correct, whether we act to prevent AGW or not. I'm anti-fundamentalist, but on the fence as far as terrorism and communism. I fear unregulated capitalism. I'm an environmentalist (including GW and AGW) and conservationist...at least compared to most Americans. I'm from upstate NY where we believe in deception and never say what we mean. Sarcasm! New Yorkers think they have a monopoly on honestly and frankness, not to mention most other things. I'm from a small town--_do not_ buy into the "small town values" nonsense as our values are no better than yours. Darwin and evolution, yes. I think the ID people are a bit crazy. Charles Darwin's hypothesis is not a hypothesis. It's a given at this point. At least you say you state your views honestly, vs. truthfully. "Truthfully" implies infallibility which none of us should claim. Who likes like being called a liar? But if you lie, you will be caught! Finally, I'll say that I enjoyed my last three trips to NYC Broadway/E. 89-th St area immensely, and much to my surprise. NOW, we can talk. BTW, I thought I saw you mention involvement in SAE someplace and was curious as to what work or interests brought involvement that about. As for me, my degree is in Math/Physics (joint major), with a course in Climatology and Atmospheric Physics (all that education from the 1970s), some work in the field of Air Quality Modeling and 18 years as a Senior Programmer/Project Manager at a driving simulator used for safety research. Unemployed now and, perhaps, for good. So, I'm trying to catch up on science issues and trying to avoid the cursed Dunning-Kruger effect. That's me in a nutshell.
    0 0
  50. koyaanisqatsi I am not a professional any longer, I am retired. My lifelong interest is paleontology and I am a continuing student in that field (I bought my retirement home because of the rock on the property, you cant walk without stepping on fossils). So I do also study paleoclimates and that is why I come to this site. When I did work it was in engineering research. Specifically automotive engineering, specialized in engine and emissions. So my work the measurements of all things mechanical, climatatic and gaseous in the interest of improving product and self policing to maintain federal compliance, both in the lab and in the field. Truth is something that we search for, honesty is an attitude. If you read my recent statements in the solar thread I think it clarifies my points fairly well.
    0 0

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2020 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us