Global warming: Re-floating climate myths and other projections on a sea of questionable data?

I wonder if progressive scientists realize that it is perfectly natural to experience temperature rise when the Earth emerges from the “little ice age” into an interglacial warming period and then, as nature dictates, returns to a period of global cooling when the temperature regresses to its unknown mean? Or if they are honest enough to state that with all of our instrumentation and computational power, all of their projections so far are within a band of plus or minus one degree Celsius and that the results are within the limits and noise of normal climate variability. In fact, the Earth has been hotter, colder, with more atmospheric carbon dioxide, with less carbon dioxide – all before the industrial age.

Even their silly little theory about carbon dioxide being the proximate cause of global warming can be proven to be demonstrably false when you note that temperature rise precedes the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and which can be easily explained by the outgassing of CO2 from warming oceans.

So why am I not surprised that the “international” progressives are trying to, once again, float a theory based on little more than a review of the biased scientific literature, inadequate computer models and progressive pipe dreams?

Reuters is reporting …

'‘Quickening climate change in the Arctic including a thaw of Greenland's ice could raise world sea levels by up to 1.6 meters by 2100, an international report showed on Tuesday.'’

How convenient their projections are always so far in advance as to make them unverifiable? But we can remember those global cooling projections of  another little ice age made forty years ago by the same people – curiously with the same political policy prescriptions that are being offered up now. And we can see that their projections made just years ago do not look like today’s climate patterns.

“Such a rise -- above most past scientific estimates -- would add to threats to coasts from Bangladesh to Florida, low-lying Pacific islands and cities from London to Shanghai. It would also, for instance, raise costs of building tsunami barriers in Japan.”

Nice how they continue to work in threats to coasts and mention tsunami barriers in Japan. And I wonder why they never mention what would happen to New York and Malibu with there pricey real estate and progressive voters. Where will they go?

"The past six years (until 2010) have been the warmest period ever recorded in the Arctic," according to the Oslo-based Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP), which is backed by the eight-nation Arctic Council.”

Interesting because …

Proxies are useful for dates of many thousands of years ago, but, as Dr Fred Singer, former director of the US Weather Satellite Services, points out, there are real temperature data available for the twentieth century and, therefore, there is no need to use the reasonably inaccurate proxy data. The actual temperature data show, in fact, that 1935 was the warmest year in the Arctic. These data were presented in a study by Arctic scientist Igor Polyakov, who also showed that the warmest period in the Arctic was from the 1930s through to the 1940s. A new Arctic study published by Håkan Grudd, of Stockholm University’s Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, confirms the conclusion that the Arctic is not warmer now than it was previously. He states: “The late twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Torneträsk record. On decadal to centurial timescales, periods around AD750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer.” In addition, Danish Metrological Institute records show that the “Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than now” – this was published May 13, 2009. A study published in Geographical Research Letters by astrophysicist Dr Willie Soon states that Arctic temperatures were found to follow an increasing and decreasing pattern consistent with changes in solar irradiance. This argument is borne out by a study by the US’s Duke University, which shows that the North Atlantic Ocean’s surface waters warmed in the 50 years between 1950 and 2000 but that the subpolar regions cooled at the same time. This resulted in patterns of cooling and warming waters, and which, the researchers indicated, can be largely explained by a natural cycle of wind circulation known as the North Atlantic Oscillation. “The Medieval Warm Period really existed – there is no scientific or historical doubt about that. It was warm, and it was 500 years in duration. History shows that people prospered and were healthier than during cold periods. <Source: That the Arctic is warming faster is a fallacy – EngineeringNews>

And we have heard this before …

Meantime, on September 3, in the BBC programme Hard Talk, interviewer Stephen Sackur interviewed retiring head of Greenpeace Gerd Leipold, who admitted that Greenpeace had erred in claiming that all Arctic ice would melt by 2030. “I don’t think it will be melting by 2030 . . . that may have been a mistake,” he said. Sackur pointed out that the Arctic ice is 1,6-million square kilometres in extent, and, at the middle, is 3 km thick, and has survived much warmer periods in the past. However, after admitting that Greenpeace had exaggerated the ice-melting rate, Leipold then went on to advocate the staggering pro- position that world economic growth must be suppressed. He maintained that economic growth could not be allowed to go ahead at 3% to 8%, because of the potential consequent damage to the environment. <Source>

When one considers that they keystone concept behind progressivism, socialism and communism is that Earth’s resources are finite and must be managed “scientifically” by the ruling elite (who are said to be much smarter than us) to conserve the resources for the “collective” and that the answer is population control and the reduction of industrialization, it all starts to make sense when you consider the public policies advocated by those who practice this toxic ideology of communism.

"’In the future, global sea level is projected to rise by 0.9 meters (2ft 11in) to 1.6 meters (5ft 3in) by 2100 and the loss of ice from Arctic glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland ice sheet will make a substantial contribution,’ it said. The rises were projected from 1990 levels.”

Isn’t is absolutely wonderful that they can make predictions which are accurate to one tenth of a meter – the results of computer models which do not even model all of the chaotic system forces that lead to climate change.

“The AMAP study, drawing on work by hundreds of experts, said there were signs that warming was accelerating. It said the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice free in summers within 30 to 40 years, earlier than projected by the IPCC.”

Another viewpoint …

While today's balance between the icecaps and global sea level has been relatively steady since about 1000 B.C., it would be careless to assume that this is the Earth's natural state and that it should always be this way. What could happen to climate naturally in the next few thousand years? If the Earth continued to warm and break from ice age conditions, some of the remaining ice caps could melt. On the other hand, climate might swing back into another ice age. (In fact, some of the environmentalists now worried about global warming were worried about another ice age in the 1960s and 1970s.) In either case, such a change in climate would take thousands of years to accomplish. Note that it has taken 18,000 years to melt 60% of the ice from the last ice age. The remaining ice is almost entirely at the north and south poles and is isolated from warmer weather. To melt the ice of Greenland and Antarctica would take thousands of years under any realistic change in climate. In the case of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, which accounts for 80% of the Earth's current ice, Sudgen argues that it existed for 14,000,000 years, through wide ranges in global climate. The IPCC 2001 report states "Thresholds for disintegration of the East Antarctic ice sheet by surface melting involve warmings above 20° C... In that case, the ice sheet would decay over a period of at least 10,000 years." The IPCC is the United Nations' scientific committee on climate change; its members tend to be the minority that predicts global warming and its statements tend to be exaggerated by administrators before release. Given that the IPCC tends to exaggerate the potential for sea level rise, it is clear that no scientists on either side of the scientific debate on global warming fear the melting of the bulk of Antarctica's ice. Consider also this abstract of an article by Jacobs contrasting scientific and popular understanding: A common public perception is that global warming will accelerate the melting of polar ice sheets, causing sea level to rise. A common scientific position is that the volume of grounded Antarctic ice is slowly growing, and will damp future sea-level rise. At present, studies supporting recent shrinkage or growth depend on limited measurements that are subject to high temporal and regional variability, and it is too early to say how the Antarctic ice sheet will behave in a warmer world. How much concern should we have about the 20% of world ice outside the East Antarctic Ice Sheet? Some sources have recently discussed the "possible collapse" of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS). It is suggested that this sheet (about 10% of Antarctic ice) could melt in the "near term" (a usefully vague phrase) and raise sea level 5 to 6 meters. Current understanding is that the WAIS has been melting for the last 10,000 years, and that its current behavior is a function of past, not current climate. The abstract of an article by Alley and Whillans addresses this: The portion of the West Antarctic ice sheet that flows into the Ross Sea is thinning in some places and thickening in others. These changes are not caused by any current climatic change, but by the combination of a delayed response to the end of the last global glacial cycle and an internal instability. The near-future impact of the ice sheet on global sea level is largely due to processes internal to the movement of the ice sheet, and not so much to the threat of a possible greenhouse warming. Thus the near-term future of the ice sheet is already determined. However, too little of the ice sheet has been surveyed to predict its overall future behavior. Similarly, recent stories have periodically appeared concerning the potential receding of the Greenland ice cap. Two points may be made regarding current understanding here. First, there is considerable disagreement as to the current rate of net ice cap loss--or even if there is net loss versus net gain. Second, even with temperature increases far greater than the dubious predictions of the IPCC, models indicate that Greenland's ice cap would take 2,000 to 10,000 years to disappear. <Source>

Bottom line …

 

More bafflegab from those well-funded institutions and scientists who realize their cushy funding is about to evaporate as the public catches on to the public policies which increase the size of government, raise taxes and energy costs, and reduce the personal choice freedoms available to all citizens.

“If all the icecaps in the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 60-75 meters (200-250 feet). This could not result from modern human activities, and from any realistic cause would take thousands of years to occur. <Source>

Can we even trust the information from our government while noting that the government is the predominant source of climate funding – which naturally introduces a bias as researchers vie for increased funding for their projects? Making it likely that projects are slanted to aims which will secure funding for institutions, scientists and particular projects.

If one simply looks at the short-term prescriptive remedies one sees that the issue is about political control of the population and can have little or no effect on the global climate. In fact, one might as well place communism on the ballot and ask us to change our entire political infrastructure to a totalitarian dictatorship governed by a climate czar.

To which I say – a revolution might be coming and it certainly won’t be caused by global warming, global climate change or global anything – it will be caused by the infringement of the God-given rights of free men.

-- steve

Reference Links …

 

Seas could rise up to 1.6 meters by 2100: study | Reuters

NOAA: Arctic Report Card (Government Source)

Arctic Sea-Ice: Another Hockey Stick?

Comments

[jahangirplm]

Thank you for the autopsy of another Fox Bogus Reporting event

- If its remotely political, they willfully and knowingly distort the issues to suit themselves and their clients - They are an unreliable and inaccurate source of information for any important issue.

Report Abuse global warming myth global warming hoax greenhouse effect greenhouse gases

===========================================
Believe it or not but Fox News -- as opposed to Fox Commentary -- is straight up and more accurate than the mainstream media. As they say "fair and balanced." The commentary is a whole different thing. O'Reilly (center moving left), Hannity (firm right), Gretta (center), Shep (news, but appears personally left), Brit Hume (journalist - none), Bret Bair (journalist - none)

Compare that to the Communist News Bureau Collective.