457 replies to this topic

[Lazarus Long]

I would not want to stop building tall buildings but they obstruct the airflow above the boundary layer too as every major urban dweller discovers to their chagrin on hot muggy days. )

Air flow from off shore turbines doesn't equal that of mountain ranges (we should all be so lucky) and not even as much as tall city neighborhoods. Bernoulli demonstrates that actually most of the energy would go around the rotors especially with the Savonius rotor designs (vertical) appropriate for taller rotors.

And Mind of course I appreciate that keen Mind of yours that is why I take the time to interact with you and tease you [lol]

You happen to be one of the few people I consider intelligent and knowledgeable enough of climate to have a rational discussion with on these matters. Agreement is not my principle reason to communicate.

[eternaltraveler]

Personally I don't see global warming as a terribly big problem. Perhaps this is because one of my hobbies is paleontology. The earth’s temperature has gone way up and way down in the past, the earth has always been fine.

People say that it is warming now faster than it ever has, that is simply not true. In the past there have been cascade releases of methane hydrate that have raised temperature quite quickly.

Sea levels are not going to rise appreciably. Northern sea ice may melt, but that ice is already sitting in the water, and thus displacing it anyway. Ice in the middle of Antarctica is not going to melt unless you can raise the temperature there by about 80 degrees. We’ve actually seen the southern icecap thicken slightly in recent years because warmer air holds more moisture and thus it snows more there.

There are plenty of great threats to the world that are a direct result of man (like the fact that we are covering the earth like vermin), but global warming is not one of them.

And if you don’t like global warming, relax; we will stop doing it soon when we run out of fossil fuels.

[Mind]

Just another article claiming how bad it is going to get.

Soaring global warming 'can't be ruled out'

....and another article (and researchers to boot) that is completely oblivious to the fact that carbon dioxide emmissions are not going to double or triple this century, but rather decline within the decade.

Here is a funny tidbit:

Some iterations of the models showed the climate cooling after an injection of CO2, but these were discarded after close examination because the temperature fall resulted from an unrealistic physical mechanism, says Stainforth. In these scenarios, cold water welling up in the tropics could not be carried away by ocean currents because these were missing from the models.

There are no obvious problems with the high temperature models, he says.

Sounds suspiciously like someone has found what he was PLANNING and HOPING to find.

[Lazarus Long]

Because our cross linking system is still not working properly I copied a part of the post I just made at the Olduvai Gorge thread to here as it also related to climate. Sorry for double posting [cry]

I just read another tree ring study yesterday that you too might find of interest as it concerns drought cycles in the last few centuries that describes trends, which predate full industrial impact and are very likely to impact food production.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6970736

New data hint at history’s huge dry spells
Scientists surprised by severity of past droughts
By Robert Roy Britt Senior writer
Updated: 8:10 p.m. ET Feb. 14, 2005

Historical droughts in the Columbia River Basin were more severe than anything in recent memory, including the drought of 1992-93, scientists said Monday.

A study of tree rings found four droughts between 1750 and 1950 that were "much more severe than anything in recent memory" because they persisted for years.

One drought that started in the 1840s lasted 12 years. Flows on the Columbia River were at least 20 percent below long-term averages and might have been much lower, said lead author Ze'ev Gedalof of the University of Guelph in Ontario. Reliable river flow records go back only about 75 years. But tree-ring data reveals how much trees grow each year, a reflection of climate.

"Imagine what a drought lasting that long would do to the resources and economy of the region today," says Dave Peterson of the U.S. Forest Service and the University of Washington's College of Forest Resources.

Five other multiyear droughts were identified, around 1775, 1805, 1890, 1925, and one in the 1930s coinciding with the Dust Bowl era.

***

The study was published recently in the Journal of the American Water Resources Association.

***

The study is a microcosmic look at one drainage. But other research has reached similar conclusions.

A much broader study covering the western United States and going back 2,000 years suggests that droughts in recent memory are indeed relatively minor.

{excerpts}

University of Washington
Periods of low flows include a 12-year drought starting in the 1840s, a severe drought in the 1930s, and four periods of low flows in 1775, 1805, 1890 and 1925. The half-century following the Dust Bowl of the 1930s was unusual for the relative absence of drought.

BTW, if you look at the pattern it appears that here in the USA we may be due for another serious period of long term drought, exactly like what is already appearing to impact significant areas of the country. These are also the kinds of climatic trends that are now linked to the demise of prehispanic civilizations like the Anasazi, Maya and Teotihuacanos.

An interesting study of this relationship of social behavior with climate has recently been published by Jared Diamond with his book "Collapse".

How Societies choose to fail or succeed

Background to Princeton lecture

radio transcript of interview

[Lazarus Long]

Here is another update on glacial melt. there have been numerous studies out now that suggest this is full fledged global event already.

Antarctic Glaciers in Retreat from Climate Change
http://story.news.ya...ent_glaciers_dc
Thu Apr 21, 8:11 PM ET   Science - Reuters
By Jeremy Lovell

LONDON (Reuters) - Most of the glaciers on the Antarctic peninsular are in headlong retreat because of climate change, a leading scientist said on Thursday.

An in-depth study using aerial photographs spanning the past half century of all 244 marine glaciers on the west side of the finger-like peninsular pointing up to South America found that 87 percent of them were in retreat -- and the speed was rising.

"Regional warming is the strongest single factor in this retreat, and there is growing evidence that this is due to global warming," scientist David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) told a news conference.

"The peninsular could end up looking like the Alps if the glaciers retreat far enough from the sea," he said.

Fellow BAS researcher Alison Cook, who spent three years studying thousands of old aerial photographs, said they clearly showed a general glacial retreat which had accelerated sharply in the past five years.

Scientists have noted before the shrinkage and breakup of some of Antarctica's giant sea ice shelves, but the new study is the first comprehensive look over a long period at the state of the glaciers that flow into the sea.


RISING SEA LEVELS

Scientists have predicted that global temperatures could rise by up to two degrees centigrade this century, pushing the planet into the unknown with rising sea levels and an increase in extreme weather events threatening millions of lives.

Most of them agree that human activities that produce greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide contribute to this global warming -- although there is deep disagreement over the degree. Carbon dioxide is emitted by burning fossil fuels in cars, power plants and factories.

Vaughan said the average temperature over the peninsular had risen two degrees in the past 50 years -- far more than the rest of the giant continent -- but said the reasons were unclear and refused to speculate on how much mankind was to blame.

"This is just one piece of the million piece jigsaw of how climate change is affecting the planet," he said.

He said the study, which is published in the journal Science, was unique as there was no series of aerial pictures dating back that far for the rest of Antarctica.

The 212 glaciers that had been in retreat since the early 1950s had shrunk by an average of 656 yards -- although one, the Widdowson Glacier, had been measured galloping backwards at an alarming 1.76 miles a year.

Ted Scambos from the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center said the study's results were a warning to the world.

"It is a great bit of insight. The Antarctic peninsular is in a state of transition due to warming and what is happening there is going to be a good indication of what will happen as the larger ice sheets -- Greenland and Antarctica proper -- begin to warm," he said.

http://story.news.ya...inking_glaciers
Study Shows Antarctic Glaciers Shrinking
Fri Apr 22,11:21 AM ET   Science - AP
By EMMA ROSS, AP Medical Writer

LONDON - The first comprehensive survey of glaciers on the Antarctic peninsula has shown that the rivers of ice are shrinking, mostly because of warming of the local climate.

It is unclear, however, whether the increased temperature causing the shrinkage is a natural regional effect or a result of global warming, said the scientists who conducted the study, published this week in the journal Science.

Researchers from the British Antarctic Survey and the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed more than 2,000 aerial photographs dating from 1940 and more than 100 satellite images from the 1960s onwards. They calculated that 87 percent of the 244 glaciers going out to sea from the peninsula have retreated during the last 50 years and that the pace of shrinkage has accelerated in the last decade. Until now, scientists were uncertain whether the glaciers were growing or melting.

"Fifty years ago, most of the glaciers we look at were slowly growing in length but since then this pattern has reversed. In the last five years the majority were actually shrinking rapidly," said the study's leader, Alison Cook of the British Antarctic Survey.

"However, 32 glaciers go against the trend and are showing minor advance. Had we not studied such a large number of glaciers we may have missed the overall pattern."

The Antarctic peninsula is a small segment of the Antarctic continent, located at the South Pole, and the behavior of the ice on the peninsula is not necessarily a reflection of what's going on elsewhere in Antarctica, said another investigator, David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey.

Temperatures seem to be much warmer on the Antarctic peninsula than on the rest of the continent. Evidence from the main Antarctic ice sheet is mixed, with some areas of the continent showing shrinkage and others showing thickening. Ice shrinkage has also been documented in Alaska and the North Pole.

Scientists worry about the melting of the ice sheets because the extra water may increase sea levels, which in turn could mean more flooding damage to coastal areas during storms.

Sea levels have risen by 4-8 inches over the last 100 years. However, the study was not able to tell whether the shrinkage is having a meaningful impact on sea levels.

It also is unclear whether changes in the larger ice sheet in Antarctica are contributing to a sea-level rise, Vaughan said.

"This is another piece in the jigsaw that tells us how climate change is affecting the planet. It may not be a significant piece, but there's a million-piece jigsaw out there to be filled in ... and this is one piece in it," Vaughan said.

PhysOrg.Com

[Chip]

Besides getting off the fossil fuel shit, there are other things that can be done.

This web site has much though it takes some reading: http://www.remineralize.org/

Here's the article the former web site lists as a recent news story that kind of gives it in a nut shell: http://www.commondre...s05/0321-02.htm

There was a video released in something like 1980 but strange things happened that basically caused the makers to fold up shop and stop promoting the cause. The video was called "Stopping the Coming Ice Age." The best parts of the flick were the displays of the large and small scale experiments with rock dust. The stuff has amazing results for quickly increasing the health and CO2 sequestering of forests and fields.

[Chip]

Gee, I hadn't drilled down at http://www.remineralize.org/ for quite some time and discovered a few minutes ago that they have added a "Magazine" with various articles and a "Research" section with testimonials about remineralizing from here and there on the globe. They've also added a forum that I will join. I also see that Robert Felix has kept his web site up to date where he explores that recent article on Antarctica claiming that it points out that temperatures in Antarctica other than the "penninsula" are reported as having become colder. Mr. Felix is quite convinced that we are moving quickly to ice age conditions. He also lists recent weather extremes which I find to be quite interesting. His site is http://www.iceagenow.com/ . Mr. Felix basically considers the Hamaker hypothesis as deluded but seems to me it fits in with his theory if he didn't just dismiss it out of hand, i.e., as explaining why volcanic activity is increasing, a major tenet of his own thoughts.

[the bricoleur]

One wonders if there is any communication with people who described huge Glacier Islands in the past - before the present generations?

I keep reading about the Glaciers growing, and then all the bad news people print is this sort of 'science'. We know that the ice-fields surrounding the Antarctic are in constant motion, forming and breaking away - and we know that within a season or so of a Major ENSO Warm Event the ones around Drakes passage thin and break away, as the warmer surface waters pass through, and eddies form to whittle away what's there...

But Media releases only focus on 'crises'.

Frustrating - but how do you find out or explain the differences to people that don't know anything about the physical environment, or the roles of ocean currents in these continuous, if erratic 'normal' changes?

Worse than that issue, What Valve do you Close to 'Fix' this one??? Shut down El Niño - a Solar Influence phenomenon? Kill off 4 Billion automobiles/drivers? Freeze during Cold Winters like we are experiencing so that everyone may be happier fifty years from now?

Coping never seems to emerge as the Solution.

--------
More comments:

New Scientists, April 16 2005, page 28 presents a letter by David Bellamy
(The conservation foundation, London UK). I quote:

"Norway's glaciers are growing at a record pace. All 48 glaciers in New Zealands Southern Alps are growing the Franz Josef about 4 metres a day." etc.

"Meanwhile at the other end of the world researchers point out that, contrary to global-warming headline-grabbing dogma, Greenland has over the last 40 to 50 years shown statistically significant cooling. Indeed, if you take all the evidence that is rarely mentioned by the Kyotoists into consideration, 55% of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Schwitserland, have been growing since 1980"

---------

"USGS - Water Resources of Alaska - Glacier & Snow Program: The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) operates a long-term "benchmark" glacier program to monitor climate, glacier geometry, glacier mass balance, glacier motion, and stream runoff", online http://ak.water.usgs...ogy/Default.htm

See especially the sections 'Mass Balance' and 'Temperature' - no strong changes there.


From the observations and measurements we see that all the glaciers both advance (grow) and retreat (melt) in various cycles, but not globally simultaneously.

Johannes Oerlemans argues in his recent study that, "The worldwide retreat of many glaciers during the last few decades is frequently mentioned as a clear and unambiguous sign of global warming". Ref: Oerlemans, Johannes Hans, 2005. Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records. Science Express published online before print March 3, 2005.

Well, we have numerous other arguments e.g. that "Glaciers are no thermometers" (Fred Singer, March 2004).

I again refer to the study:

Seidel, Dian J. and Melissa Free, 2003. Comparison of Lower-Tropospheric Temperature Climatologies and Trends at Low and High Elevation Radiosonde Sites. Climatic Change Vol. 59, No 1-2, pp. 53-74, July 2003.

".... to determine the nature of climate variability at high elevation sites requires local observations, since large-scale patterns derived from low elevation observations may not be representative of the mountain regions. Conversely, temperature change in mountain regions should not be viewed as necessarily representative of global surface or tropospheric trends."


Well......

… a few new studies I have noticed:

1) Favier, Vincent, Patrick Wagnon, and Pierre Ribstein, 2004. Glaciers of the outer and inner tropics: A different behaviour but a common response to climatic forcing. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L16403, doi:10.1029/2004GL020654, August 27, 2004.

Abstract

"We have compared the annual surface energy balance (SEB) of Zongo Glacier (16°S, Bolivia, outer tropics) and Antizana Glacier 15 (0°S, Ecuador, inner tropics). On annual time scale energy fluxes are very similar in the ablation zone: turbulent heat fluxes compensate each other and net short-wave radiation dominates the SEB. Albedo is central in controlling the melting. Consequently solid precipitation occurrence manages the annual mass balance variability. In the outer tropics, the annual melting is directly related to the annual distribution of precipitation, the period December–February being crucial. However, in the inner tropics, liquid precipitation can occur on the ablation zone, and snowline altitude remains very sensitive to air temperature. Tropical glaciers react rapidly to El Niño events, mainly because of an induced precipitation deficit in the outer tropics and to a temperature increase in the inner tropics, both leading to a rise in snowline altitude."


2) Berthier, E., Y. Arnaud, D. Baratoux, C. Vincent, and F. Rémy, 2004. Recent rapid thinning of the “Mer de Glace” glacier derived from satellite optical images. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L17401, doi:10.1029/2004GL020706, September 3, 2004.

Abstract

"The rapid wastage of mountain glaciers and their contribution to sea level rise require worldwide monitoring of their mass balance. In this paper, we show that changes in glacier thickness can be accurately measured from satellite images. We use SPOT image pairs to build Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) of the Mont Blanc area (French Alps) for different years. To register the DEMs, we adjust their longitude, latitude and altitude over motionless areas. The uncertainty of the thickness change measurement is greatly reduced by averaging over areas covering altitude intervals of 50 m. Comparisons with topographic profiles and a differential DEM from aerial photographs obtained on the Mer de Glace indicate an overall accuracy of 1 m for the thickness change measurement. Below 2100 m, satellite DEMs show an evolution of the thinning rate from 1 ± 0.4 m.a?1 (years 1979–1994) to 4.1 ± 1.7 m.a?1 (2000–2003)."


3) Francou, Bernard, Mathias Vuille, Vincent Favier, and Bolivar Cáceres, 2004. New evidence for an ENSO impact on low-latitude glaciers: Antizana 15, Andes of Ecuador, 0°28?S. J. Geophys. Res. – Atm., 109, D18106, doi:10.1029/2003JD004484, September 17, 2004.

Abstract

"Continuous monthly mass balance measurements from the ablation zone of Antizana 15 glacier in the Andes of Ecuador between January 1995 and December 2002 indicate a strong dependence on El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Over the 8-year period investigated, mass balance was negative all year round during El Niño periods but remained close to equilibrium (positive anomalies) during La Niña events. On seasonal timescales, mean ablation rates remain at a quite constant level all year round, but interannual variability shows much larger changes from year to year during the key periods February–May and September. This variability is caused by large differences that occur in the seasonal cycle during the two opposite phases of ENSO. Since ENSO is phase locked to the seasonal cycle with largest sea surface temperature anomalies around boreal winter, November–February, and the atmospheric response to ENSO is delayed by 3 months over the Ecuadorian Andes, year-to-year variations in mass balance are largest between February and May. Energy balance studies at the glacier surface indicate that high air temperature, which favors rain over snowfall, weak and sporadic snowfall, insufficient to maintain a high glacier albedo, low wind speeds, which limit the transfer of energy from melting to sublimation, and reduced cloud cover, which increases the incoming short-wave radiation, are the dominant factors related to El Niño, which tend to increase ablation. La Niña events on the other hand are characterized by colder temperatures, higher snowfall amounts, and to a lesser degree, more constant winds, factors which increase albedo and sublimation and therefore preclude melting at the glacier surface. The effects of ENSO variability are also important over the accumulation area, which represents up to 80% of the glacier surface during La Niña events (1999–2000) and 45–60% in El Niño years. Since the accumulation rates increase during these cold periods, the specific net balance and the dynamics of the entire glacier are strongly affected. Longer mass balance records than this 8-year period are needed for conclusive answers about the dependence of the Ecuadorian glaciers on ENSO variability, but initial results suggest that the response observed on Antizana glaciers is very similar to what has been observed previously during ENSO periods on Andean glaciers in the outer tropics. The seasonal dependence on ENSO and the physical mechanisms linking ENSO with mass balance variations on Antizana, however, are different from the response observed on Andean glaciers in the outer tropics."


4) Paul, Frank, A. Kääb, M. Maisch, T. Kellenberger, and W. Haeberli, 2004. Rapid disintegration of Alpine glaciers observed with satellite data. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L21402, doi:10.1029/2004GL020816, November 12, 2004.

Abstract

"Analyses of multispectral satellite data indicate accelerated glacier decline around the globe since the 1980s. By using digitized glacier outlines inferred from the 1973 inventory and Landsat Thematic Mapper ™ satellite data from 1985 to 1999, we obtained area changes of about 930 Alpine glaciers. The 18% area reduction as observed for the period 1985 to 1999 (?1.3% a?1) corresponds to a seven times higher loss rate compared to the 1850–1973 decadal mean. Extrapolation of area change rates and cumulative mass balances to all Alpine glaciers yields a corresponding volume loss of about 25 km3 since 1973. Highly individual and non-uniform changes in glacier geometry (disintegration) indicate a massive down-wasting rather than a dynamic response to a changed climate. Our results imply stronger ongoing glacier retreat than assumed so far and a probable further enhancement of glacier disintegration by positive feedbacks."


5) Joughin, Ian, Waleed Abdalati and Mark Fahnestock, 2004. Large fluctuations in speed on Greenland's Jakobshavn Isbræ glacier. Nature Vol. 432, No 7017, pp. 608-610, December 2, 2004.

"It is important to understand recent changes in the velocity of Greenland glaciers because the mass balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet is partly determined by the flow rates of these outlets. Jakobshavn Isbræ is Greenland's largest outlet glacier, draining about 6.5 per cent of the ice-sheet area, and it has been surveyed repeatedly since 1991 (ref. 2). Here we use remote sensing data to measure the velocity of Jakobshavn Isbræ between 1992 and 2003. We detect large variability of the velocity over time, including a slowing down from 6,700 m yr-1 in 1985 to 5,700 m yr-1 in 1992, and a subsequent speeding up to 9,400 m yr-1 by 2000 and 12,600 m yr-1 in 2003. These changes are consistent with earlier evidence for thickening of the glacier in the early 1990s and rapid thinning thereafter. Our observations indicate that fast-flowing glaciers can significantly alter ice discharge at sub-decadal timescales, with at least a potential to respond rapidly to a changing climate."


6) Matthews, John A. et al., 2005. Holocene glacier history of Bjørnbreen and climatic reconstruction in central Jotunheimen, Norway, based on proximal glaciofluvial stream-bank mires. Quaternary Science Reviews Vol. 24, No 1-2, pp. 67-90, January 2005.

Abstract

"Holocene variations of Bjørnbreen, Smørstabbtinden massif, west-central Jotunheimen are reconstructed from the lithostratigraphy of two alpine stream-bank mires flooded episodically by meltwater. The approach uses multiple sedimentological indicators (weight loss-on-ignition, mean grain size, grain-size fractions, bulk density, moisture content and magnetic susceptibility), an a priori model of overbank deposition of suspended glaciofluvial sediments, a detailed chronology based on 56 radiocarbon dates, and a Little Ice Age sedimentological analogue. Rapid, late-Preboreal deglaciation was indicated by immigration of Betula pubescens by 9700 cal. BP. An interval of at least 3000 years in the early Holocene when glaciers were absent was interrupted by two abrupt episodes of glacier expansion around the time of the Finse Event, the first at ca 8270-7900 cal. BP (Bjørnbreen I Event) and the second at ca 7770-7540 cal. BP (Bjørnbreen II Event). Neoglaciation began shortly before ca 5730 cal. BP with gradual build-up to the maximum of the Bjørnbreen III Event at ca 4420 cal. BP. Later maxima occurred at ca 2750 cal. BP (Bjørnbreen IV Event) and at 1300, 1260, 1060 and 790 cal. BP (all within the Bjørnbreen V Event). Glaciers were smaller than today and possibly melted away on several occasions in the late Holocene (ca 3950, 1410 and 750 cal. BP). Minor maxima also occurred at ca 660 and 540 cal. BP, within the late Mediaeval Warm Period and the early Little Ice Age, respectively. The Little Ice Age maximum was dated to 213±25 BP (ca 205 cal. BP). The relative magnitudes of the main glacier maxima were determined: Erdalen Event>Little Ice Age Event (Bjørnbreen VI)>Bjørnbreen I (Finse Event) ? Bjørnbreen II>Bjørnbreen VBjørnbreen IV>Bjørnbreen III. These episodic events of varying magnitude and abruptness were used in conjunction with an independent summer-temperature proxy to reconstruct variations in equilibrium-line altitude (ELA) and a Holocene record of winter precipitation. Since the Preboreal, ELA varied within a range of about 390 m, and winter precipitation ranged between 40 and 160% of modern values. Winter precipitation variations appear to have been the main cause of these century- to millennial-scale Holocene glacier variations."

-------

[the bricoleur]

Science and Nature Not Impartial

For decades critical and sceptical climate scientists have lamented that the journals Science and Nature have not published their papers, but have wanted 'not to rock the boat' of the alleged anthropogenic global warming hypothesis and the Kyoto Protocol.

The editors disagree, of course.

The Sunday Telegraph has published an article on this topic.

----------------------

Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'

The Sunday Telegraph, 1 May 2005

By Robert Matthews

Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.

A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.

A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.

The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.

The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.

A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."

Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them."

Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.

As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."

Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."

He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."

Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming. In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".

A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views."

Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality.

"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.

Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."

Copyright 2005, The Sunday Telegraph

...............

[eternaltraveler]

Global warming... ice age. Either way we'll be fine. We're human, we can adapt.

[jaydfox]

And if you don’t like global warming, relax; we will stop doing it soon when we run out of fossil fuels.

[mellow] ... [huh] ... ... [lol] ... [g:)] ... [8)] ... [thumb] ...

Sorry, no good deed goes unpunished. That reminds me of something an ultra-conservative religious libertarian Republican said at work a couple weeks ago.

Basically, he said that environmentalists should buy Hummers or other cars that get terrible gas mileage. The idea is, the sooner they can help use up all the oil, the sooner we'll have to switch to an alternative fuel.

Okay, lame pot-shot at environmentalists, but it made me think of something. Maybe environmentalists should use up as much oil as they can. Not so that they can deplete oil faster, but so that the economy adjusts to the reduced amount of oil that's available now. Then, when the oil crisis really gets going, then the environmentalists can switch to clean cars, freeing up the oil they had been using for someone else...

[Lazarus Long]

Economics not ethics are god.

GM is going broke fast and their dependence on a dwindling SUV market (and huge pension fund liability) are the reason. The irony is that the market for these SUV's fell out from under them so fast that they are seeing the 70's all over again and the lesson this time is adapt fast.

They are re-examining the Hybrid and Electric car market and are inclined to retool and offer options now that they had intended to wait much of a decade to otherwise.

The consumer really does still have some clout through the choices we make at the marketplace.

BTW, used hybrids are selling for as much as 2 to 3K$ above new car price and the demand for economical cars is driving hybrids and small economy car buyers onto waiting lists and producing a hefty premium above sticker price as well.

Used Prius prices like new

Even used, some Prius hybrid cars selling for above sticker price

[jaydfox]

The irony is that the market for these SUV's fell out from under them so fast that they are seeing the 70's all over again and the lesson this time is adapt fast.

And think of how much sooner this trend could have started in the U.S., if we had been busy incrementally raising gas taxes, instead of finding excuses to repeal them. I've long been a proponent of incrementally raising gas taxes, slow enough to not cause a depression (though there will be some effect on the economy, I grant), but fast enough that it's not like the proverbial frog in a pot of cold water brought slowly to a boil: in other words, fast enough that people take notice and change their car buying patterns, but slow enough that they can still afford their rent.

[Lazarus Long]

And think of how much sooner this trend could have started in the U.S., if we had been busy incrementally raising gas taxes, instead of finding excuses to repeal them. I've long been a proponent of incrementally raising gas taxes, slow enough to not cause a depression (though there will be some effect on the economy, I grant), but fast enough that it's not like the proverbial frog in a pot of cold water brought slowly to a boil: in other words, fast enough that people take notice and change their car buying patterns, but slow enough that they can still afford their rent.

As someone who is not a libertarian I am in favor of this approach as well and then putting the increased funding into Alternative Energy development.

Oh yeah that was another Carter strategy that was discarded by the Reagan Administration and even set back by the Clinton Administration.

[the bricoleur]

THE DANGERS OF CONSENSUS SCIENCE

National Post, 17 May 2005
LINK

Six eminent researchers from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel
Space Agency have just published a startling paper in one of the world's
leading space science journals. The team of solar physicists claims to have
come up with compelling evidence that changes in cosmic ray intensity and
variations in solar activity have been driving much of the Earth's climate.
They even provide a testable hypothesis, predicting that amplified cosmic
ray intensity will lead to an increase of the global cloud cover which,
according to their calculations, will result in "some small global cooling
over the next couple of years."

I remain decidedly skeptical of such long-term climate predictions.
Nevertheless, it is quite remarkable that the global mean temperature, as
recorded by NASA's global Land-Ocean Temperature Index, has actually dropped
slightly during the last couple of years -- notwithstanding increased levels
of CO2 emissions. Two more years of cooling and we may even see the
reappearance of a new Ice Age scare.

Whatever one may think of these odd developments, the idea that the sun is
the principal driver of terrestrial climate has been gaining ground in
recent years. Last month, Jan Veizer, one of Canada's top Earth scientists,
published a comprehensive review of recent findings and concluded that
"empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as
the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as
potential amplifiers."

What the Russian, Israeli and Canadian researchers have in common is that
they allocate much of the climate change to solar variability rather than
human causes. They also publish their papers in some of the world's leading
scientific journals. So why is it that a recent study published in the
leading U.S. journal Science categorically claims that skeptical papers
don't exist in the peer-reviewed literature?

According to an essay by Naomi Oreskes, published by Science in December,
2004, there is unanimous "scientific consensus" on the anthropogenic causes
of recent global warming. Oreskes, a professor of history, claims to have
analyzed 928 abstracts on global climate change, of which 75% either
explicitly or implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming
trend is man-made. When I checked the same set of abstracts, I discovered
that just over a dozen explicitly endorse the "consensus," while the vast
majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming. Oreskes
even claims that this universal agreement had not been questioned once in
any of the papers since 1993 and concludes: "This analysis shows that
scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the
National Academy of Sciences and the public statements of their professional
societies. Politicians, economists, journalists and others may have the
impression of confusion, disagreement or discord among climate scientists,
but that impression is incorrect."

What happened to the countless research papers that show global temperatures
were similar or even higher during the Holocene Climate Optimum and the
Medieval Warm Period, when atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than
today; that solar variability is a key driver of recent climate change, and
that climate modeling is highly uncertain? An unbiased analysis of the
peer-reviewed literature on global warming will find hundreds of papers
(many of them written by the world's leading experts in the field) that have
raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a
"scientific consensus on climate change." The truth is, there is no such
thing.

In fact, the explicit and implicit rejection of the "consensus" is not
restricted to individual scientists. It also includes distinguished
scientific organizations such as the Russian Academy of Science and the U.S.
Association of State Climatologists, both of which are highly skeptical of
the whole idea. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists formally
rejects the view that anthropogenic factors are the main trigger of global
warming, emphasizing: "The Earth's climate is constantly changing owing to
natural variability in Earth processes. Natural climate variability over
recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential
human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test
the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural
variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global
climate at this time."

In the meantime, activists, campaigners and a number of scientific
organizations routinely cited Oreskes' essay as final confirmation that the
science of climate change is settled once and for all. In a worrying sign of
attempted press containment, Britain's Royal Society has even employed her
study to call upon the British media to curtail reporting about the
scientific controversy altogether.

Yet the scientific community is far from any global warming consensus, as
was revealed by a recent survey among some 500 international climate
researchers. The survey, conducted by Professors Dennis Bray and Hans von
Storch of the German Institute for Coastal Research, found that "a quarter
of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the
most recent climatic changes." Remarkably, a research paper about their
survey and some of its key results were submitted to Science in August,
2004. Yet shortly after the paper was rejected, the journal published
Oreskes' study, which claimed a universal consensus among climate
researchers.

The decision to publish Oreskes' claim of general agreement (just days
before an important UN conference on global warming, COP-10) was apparently
made while the editors of Science were sitting on a paper that showed quite
clearly the opposite. It would appear that the editors of Science knowingly
misled the public and the world's media. In my view, such unethical
behaviour constitutes a grave contravention, if not a corruption of
scientific procedure. This form of unacceptable misconduct is much worse
than the editors' refusal to publish the numerous letters and rebuttals
regarding Oreskes' flawed study.

The stifling of dissent and the curtailing of scientific skepticism is
bringing climate research into disrepute. Science is supposed to work by
critical evaluation, open-mindedness and self-correction. There is a fear
among climate alarmists that the very existence of scientific skepticism and
doubts about their gloomy predictions will be used by politicians to delay
action. But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's
all over for science.

Benny Peiser is a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University.

Copyright 2005, National Post

[biggee]

MIND posted;

Unfortunately no one hears this thoughtful analysis above the wail of the media mongering environmentalists.

Exactly.

Has anyone really stopped to ask what the real objective facts are and proceed from there rather than listening to the 'wail of the media mongering environmentalists' whose actual agenda is questionable to begin with!

The Kyoto Protocol is a political solution to a non-existent problem without scientific justification. Dr. Timothy Ball,
Canada’s First Climatology Ph. D.

The above from the Friends of Science website where you can check out some real facts about global warming. [thumb]

Choose Reality

[JMorgan]

Here's an article worth reading.

Global Warming Blues

While temperatures can only go up or down at any given moment, global warmers seem to want to have it both ways so that any change in climate, regardless of direction, can be attributed to human activity... Such contradictory reporting casually ignores the reality that greenhouse gas emissions can’t simultaneously cool and warm Europe.

A more sober reality, though, is that whatever slight impact humans might have on the climate, it is too small to measure – a point made in a study just published by Swiss researchers in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews (November 2005).

The study reviewed prior efforts to reconstruct global temperatures of the last 1,000 years. It concluded that natural temperature variations over the last millenium may have been so significant that they would "result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in [causing] temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of [manmade] emissions and affecting future predicted [global climate] scenarios."

Interesting perspective that sort of highlights how little we still know about the Earth's climate cycles. Clearly the Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles all on its own.

[floodgate]

Interesting posts,... Reminds me of a program last month on either cable or PBS in Wisconsin about the mini ice age. Guess what, some are warning that another mini ice age may be coming back. Here is a google link I found from searching "mini ice age". http://www.google.co...q=mini ice age . In the mean time, I'll think warm thoughts, [lol]

[biknut]

here's a webb sight with informatiom that we are more likely to enter an ice age than global warming.

http://www.iceagenow.com/index.htm

This news story illustrates part of the reason why scientists cannot even reach a consensus on whether we really have global warming or not. The problem is we really don't know that much.

http://www.mpg.de/en...entation/pressR eleases/2003/pressRelease20030718/index.html


News C / 2003 (13) July 18th, 2003


The Fiery Face of the Arctic Deep


Results from a German-American Arctic expedition to the Gakkel Ridge have implications for the understanding of the generation of new seafloor

The Gakkel ridge is a gigantic volcanic mountain chain stretching beneath the Arctic Ocean. With its deep valleys 5,500 meter beneath the sea surface and its 5,000 meter high summits, Gakkel ridge is far mightier than the Alps. This is the site of seafloor spreading that is actively separating Europe from North America, and was the goal of the international expedition AMORE (Arctic Mid-Ocean Ridge Expedition) with two research icebreakers, the "USCGC Healy" from USA and the German "PFS Polarstern". Aboard were scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry and other international institutions. The scientists had expected that the Gakkel ridge would exhibit "anemic" magmatism. Instead, surprisingly strong magmatic activity in the West and the East of the ridge and one of the strongest hydrothermal activities ever seen at mid-ocean ridges were found. These results require a fundamental rethinking of the mechanisms of seafloor generation at midocean ridges (Nature, January 16 and June 26).

[biknut]

Sounds like they could use a little global warming here.

http://www.breitbart.../D8EQP9EO8.html

[biknut]

Global Warming, enjoy it while you can.

Scientist predicts 'mini Ice Age'
ST. PETERSBURG, Russia, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A Russian astronomer has predicted that Earth will experience a "mini Ice Age" in the middle of this century, caused by low solar activity.

Khabibullo Abdusamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomic Observatory in St. Petersburg said Monday that temperatures will begin falling six or seven years from now, when global warming caused by increased solar activity in the 20th century reaches its peak, RIA Novosti reported.

The coldest period will occur 15 to 20 years after a major solar output decline between 2035 and 2045, Abdusamatov said.

Dramatic changes in the earth's surface temperatures are an ordinary phenomenon, not an anomaly, he said, and result from variations in the sun's energy output and ultraviolet radiation.

The Northern Hemisphere's most recent cool-down period occurred between 1645 and 1705. The resulting period, known as the Little Ice Age, left canals in the Netherlands frozen solid and forced people in Greenland to abandon their houses to glaciers, the scientist said.



© Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved

http://upi.com/NewsT...07-041447-2345r

[Live Forever]

An article on the BBC website (link) is reporting that reduced air pollution and increased water evaporation appears to be adding to man-made global warming. Research presented at a major European science meeting adds to other evidence that cleaner air is letting more solar energy through to the Earth's surface. So, let's see, burning fossil fuels makes global warming worse, and cleaning up the air makes things worse. I don't think we can win. [sad]

[Mind]

During the course of this thread I have been pretty critical of the contradictions within the climate change debate, as some of you have also pointed out. I am also angered at how socialists and hardcore environmentalists have co-opted and corrupted the debate trying to push through punitive "corrective" actions like Kyoto. I think a carrot would work better than a stick. I don't believe in completely halting progress to achieve some mythical 100% protection of the envirnoment.

Even though I am a critic, I still believe in protecting the environment. I do it on a personal level. I try to follow the three R's as much as possible. Recycle, Re-use, Reduce. I ride bicycle to work and back (12 miles aday) in order to conserve fuel, not pollute, and save money. I go to elementary schools and teach kids about the weather and I tell them to take care of the environment around their house and neighborhood and these actions will help out on a global scale.

[scottl]

http://energycommerc..._fact_sheet.pdf

Full report



http://corner.nation...jViYmY3NDJjNjM=


"Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis."


A Statistician Speaks [Iain Murray]

That icon of climate alarmism, the “hockey stick,” which says that recent temperatures are higher than they have been for 1000 years, was recently broken down to an uncontroversial 400 years by a National Academies report. Concurrently, Rep. Barton commissioned a report for the House Resources Committee on the statistical methods used to produce the hockey stick. A very eminent statistician, Dr Edward Wegman, conducted the report pro bono with other learned colleagues. His report, issued today, is devastating for the hockey stick’s supporters:

It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community. Additionally, we judge that the sharing of research materials, data and results was haphazardly and grudgingly done. In this case we judge that there was too much reliance on peer review, which was not necessarily independent. Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility. Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

Edited by scottl, 15 July 2006 - 11:05 AM.

[doug123]

Even though I am a critic, I still believe in protecting the environment. I do it on a personal level. I try to follow the three R's as much as possible. Recycle, Re-use, Reduce. I ride bicycle to work and back (12 miles aday) in order to conserve fuel, not pollute, and save money. I go to elementary schools and teach kids about the weather and I tell them to take care of the environment around their house and neighborhood and these actions will help out on a global scale.

I imagine you are in excellent shape!

Spreading awareness to kids who have not yet committed themselves to a position is likely to have a lot more impact than us stubborn "adults."

Peace.

[scottl]

Dan Simmons comments --

The "global warming" issue seems to combine the passions and prejudices of both religion and politics.

I live near Boulder, Colorado, the headquarters for NOAA, the Nat'l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. as well as NCAR, National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other such climate-oriented science centers. I've enjoyed talking to atmospheric scientists here for more than three decades. While the evidence of some sort of global warming is overwhelming, the causes, processes, and prediction reliability are not so universally agreed upon as the media would have us believe.

One minority voice in this discussion is Dr. Bill Gray, Prof. Emeritus at Colorado State University and perhaps the world's foremost expert on hurricanes and hurricane predictions. While his research funding has been slashed because of his non-conformist views on global warming (he believes that manmade CO-two levels are not the prime cause, that the furor has been more political than scientific, and that while warming is indeed being observed, that a cooling effect will recur within the next few years), Gray continues to speak out and to continue his research. His primary argument -- that global atmospheric (or even annual hurricane) predictive models have NEVER been accurate beyond a period of a few months predictability -- has yet to be fully refuted.

One can see an interview with Gray here -- http://www.discover....cover-dialogue/
and a concerted attack on his research assumptions here --

http://www.realclima...04/gray-on-agw/

[Lazarus Long]

Well here is some more interesting evidence and it is specious to ignore the human contribution to the issue. There is obviously a natural component too but together they add up to the real problem, especially with a changing albedo and increased solar radiation.

Deep ice tells long climate story

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, Norwich

Carbon dioxide levels are substantially higher now than at any time in the last 800,000 years, the latest study of ice drilled out of Antarctica confirms.  The in-depth analysis of air bubbles trapped in a 3.2km-long core of frozen snow shows current greenhouse gas concentrations are unprecedented. The East Antarctic core is the longest, deepest ice column yet extracted. Project scientists say its contents indicate humans could be bringing about dangerous climate changes.

"My point would be that there's nothing in the ice core that gives us any cause for comfort," said Dr Eric Wolff from the British Antarctic Survey (BAS).

"There's nothing that suggests that the Earth will take care of the increase in carbon dioxide. The ice core suggests that the increase in carbon dioxide will definitely give us a climate change that will be dangerous," he told BBC News.  The Antarctic researcher was speaking here at the British Association's (BA) Science Festival.

Slice of history

The ice core comes from a region of the White Continent known as Dome Concordia (Dome C). It has been drilled out by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica), a 10-country consortium.

The column's value to science is the tiny pockets of ancient air that were locked into its millennia of accumulating snowflakes.

Each slice of this now compacted snow records a moment in Earth history, giving researchers a direct measure of past environmental conditions.

Not only can scientists see past concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane - the two principal human-produced gases now blamed for global warming - in the slices, they can also gauge past temperatures from the samples. This is done by analysing the presence of different types, or isotopes, of hydrogen atom that are found preferentially in precipitating water (snow) when temperatures are relatively warm.

'Scary' rate

Earlier results from the Epica core were published in 2004 and 2005, detailing the events back to 440,000 years and 650,000 years respectively. Scientists have now gone the full way through the column, back another 150,000 years. The picture is the same: carbon dioxide and temperature rise and fall in step.

(excerpt)

And from nature's side here is a source that compoubnds the problem.

Methane bubbles climate trouble
Thursday, 7 September 2006, 00:55 GMT 01:55 UK 

Thawing Siberian bogs are releasing more of the greenhouse gas methane than previously believed, according to new scientific research.
Scientists from Russia and the US measured methane bubbling from a number of thawing lakes.

Writing in the journal Nature, they suggest the methane release is hastened by warmer temperatures, positively feeding back into global warming. Methane's contribution to present-day global warming is second only to CO2.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that atmospheric concentrations are about two and a half times those seen in pre-industrial times.

(excerpt)

[mikelorrey]

What the press doesn't tell you about that study is that CO2 levels were as high during the Middle Ages Warm Period, and higher BEFORE the 800,000 year point.

[Lazarus Long]

They didn't even mention the effect of natural sources of methane that are exacerbating the problem from the melting Arctic tundra across Asia and America. There is also another critical tipping point if the currents driving the Gulf Stream that depend on the downward force of supercooled arctic seawater end (as current observation imply is happening). It will have a dramatic impact on European weather but also all of the US.

The only thing we can be sure of is that moderating factors that influence much of European weather will be dramatically altered. But these currents do much more than that.


Snowball Effect Fuels Arctic Meltdown

Sara Goudarzi
LiveScience Staff Writer
LiveScience.com
Thu Oct 5, 2:45 PM ET

A pair of studies out this week along with other recent evidence suggests an observed meltdown of Arctic ice is snowballing into a situation that could leave the North Pole ice-free during summer in just a few decades. A rapid annual retreat of ice is exposing the darker ocean, which absorbs more of the sun's energy and fuels increased melting of ice.

"I'm not terribly optimistic about the future of the ice," said Mark Serreze, a research professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder’s National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). "As greenhouse gases continue to rise, the Arctic will continue to lose its ice. You just can't argue with the physics."


Mass migration

In one study, scientists reported today that the continued warming of the Arctic Ocean is creating new pathways for zooplankton to move up to northern latitudes. Zooplankton are small floating organisms that drift with water currents and make up part of the food supply that most ocean life depend on.

Researchers aboard the vessel Maria S Merian just returned from the Arctic and confirmed warming trends.

"Compared to last summer, the water that flows from the Norwegian Sea [northward] to the Arctic has been an average 0.8 degrees Celsius [1.4 Fahrenheit] warmer this summer," said expedition leader Ursula Schauer of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. "This is in addition to the last two years already having been warmer than the previous 20 from which we have regular measurements."

Zooplankton originally from the Norwegian Sea were previously unrecorded in the northern latitudes where they were spotted this summer. Warmer water allowed them to move north, the researchers said.

For a month, researchers tracked warm waters along the sea-ice margin between Greenland and Spitsbergen—the largest island in the Svalbard archipelago in the Arctic Ocean. Because the sea-ice margin was far north this summer, the Maria S Merian reached its northernmost position ever.

A separate study announced last month revealed that unprecedented cracks in polar ice extended all the way to the North Pole.


No ice by 2060

In another new study out yesterday, researchers noted that the Arctic sea ice minimum—the lowest amount of ice recorded in the area annually during the summer melt season—reached its fourth lowest on record on Sept. 14 in 29 years of satellite record-keeping.

The ice has been declining at about 8.6 percent per decade, or at about 23 million square miles per year—an area more than half the size of Ohio, said Serreze, the CU-Boulder scientist. The pattern of decreasing ice due to rising temperatures is probably caused by greenhouse warming, the researchers said.

The record low that occurred in 2005 was 20 percent lower than the average ice extent from 1978 to 2001. In 2005 the ice decreased about 500,000 square miles in area, almost twice the size of Texas. The 2006 low is about 400,000 square miles less than the average.

"At this rate, the Arctic Ocean will have no ice in September by the year 2060," said Julienne Stroeve, a researcher with CU-Boulder’s NSIDC. "The loss of summer sea ice does not bode well for species like the polar bear, which depend on the ice for their livelihood."

Other projections in recent months have also suggested the Arctic could eventually become ice-free in summer.


Snowball effect

Higher-than-normal winter temperatures of the Artic in the past couple of years led to limited ice growth. And most of the ice that formed was thinner than normal. So when temperatures are higher than normal in summer, the ice melts faster than it would have were it thicker.

A snowball effect is in place.

"Melting ice means more of the dark ocean is exposed, allowing it to absorb more of the sun's energy, further increasing air temperatures, ocean temperatures, and ice melt," said Ted Scambos, a scientist from CU-Boulder. "It seems that this feedback, which is a major reason for the pronounced effects of greenhouse warming in the Arctic, is really starting to kick in."

According to the study, average air temperatures from January to July 2006 in most of the Arctic were 2 to 7 degrees warmer than the average over the past 50 years.

[mikelorrey]

Ask these people if they are aware that solar cycle 25 will have a sunspot count of less than 50, with a global cooling in the order of 1.5-2.0 C by 2022. Expect the ice to return in force. Greenland will be uninhabitable, once again.