BoatBanter.com - So much for global warming . . .

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- Cruising (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/)

- - So much for global warming . . . (https://www.boatbanter.com/cruising/101314-so-much-global-warming.html)

So much for global warming . . .

Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=13834

Sea ice at same levels as 1979. Another nail in the coffin of global
warming alarmists and kook believers.

Wilbur Hubbard

From the National Snow and Ice Data Center

http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

2008 year in review

Arctic sea ice in 2008 was notable for several reasons. The year
continued the negative trend in summer sea ice extent, with the
second-lowest summer minimum since record-keeping began in 1979. 2008
sea ice also showed well-below-average ice extents throughout the entire
year.

The ice cover in 2008 began the year heavily influenced by the
record-breaking 2007 melt season. Because so much ice had melted out
during the previous summer, a vast expanse of ocean was exposed to low
winter air temperatures, encouraging ice growth. Although still well
below average, March 2008 saw slightly greater ice extent at the annual
maximum than measured in recent years. However, the ice was also thin:
less than a year old and vulnerable to melting in summer. Even the
geographic North Pole was covered with thin ice, capturing the
imaginations of many in the media and general public.

Would 2008 break the 2007 record low summer minimum extent? Would the
geographic North Pole be ice free for the first time in the satellite
era? From May through July, cooler temperatures and winds less
favorable to ice loss slowed the decline in ice extent. Nevertheless, by
August the rate of ice loss was much faster than average—even faster
than in 2007—as the effects of a warm Arctic Ocean worked against the
thin ice cover. The melt season became a race: waning sunlight versus
rapid ice loss.

Oh, and this too from the same people.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

DECLINE CAUSES

Greenhouse gases emitted through human activities and the resulting
increase in global mean temperatures are the most likely underlying
cause of the sea ice decline, but the direct cause is a complicated
combination of factors resulting from the warming, and from climate
variability. The Arctic Oscillation (AO) is a see-saw pattern of
alternating atmospheric pressure at polar and mid-latitudes. The
positive phase produces a strong polar vortex, with the mid-latitude jet
stream shifted northward. The negative phase produces the opposite
conditions. From the 1950s to the 1980s, the AO flipped between positive
and negative phases, but it entered a strong positive pattern between
1989 and 1995. So the acceleration in the sea ice decline since the mid
1990s may have been partly triggered by the strongly positive AO mode
during the preceding years (Rigor et al. 2002 and Rigor and Wallace
2004) that flushed older, thicker ice out of the Arctic, but other
factors also played a role.

Since the mid-1990s, the AO has largely been a neutral or negative
phase, and the late 1990s and early 2000s brought a weakening of the
Beaufort Gyre. However, the longevity of ice in the gyre began to change
as a result of warming along the Alaskan and Siberian coasts. In the
past, sea ice in this gyre could remain in the Arctic for many years,
thickening over time. Beginning in the late 1990s, sea ice began melting
in the southern arm of the gyre, thanks to warmer air temperatures and
more extensive summer melt north of Alaska and Siberia. Moreover, ice
movement out of the Arctic through Fram Strait continued at a high rate
despite the change in the AO. Thus warming conditions and wind patterns
have been the main drivers of the steeper decline since the late 1990s.
Sea ice may not be able to recover under the current persistently warm
conditions, and a tipping point may have been passed where the Arctic
will eventually be ice-free during at least part of the summer (Lindsay
and Zhang 2005).

Examination of the long-term satellite record dating back to 1979 and
earlier records dating back to the 1950s indicate that spring melt
seasons have started earlier and continued for a longer period
throughout the year (Serreze et al. 2007). Even more disquieting,
comparison of actual Arctic sea ice decline to IPCC AR4 projections show
that observed ice loss is faster than any of the IPCC AR4 models have
predicted (Stroeve et al. 2007).

Ultimately, summer 2008 finished with the second-lowest minimum extent
in the satellite record, 9% above the 2007 minimum and 34% below
average. A more diffuse ice cover and a thinner pack nevertheless
suggested a record-low ice volume (ice area multiplied by thickness) at
the end of summer.

As the sun set in the Arctic with the advent of autumn, seasonal ice
growth was initially quite rapid, but slowed during early November.
Average ice extent in December was well below average and very close to
that measured in 2007. Heading into 2009, the Arctic sea ice cover is
again young and thin; given this set-up, a continuation of
well-below-average sea ice extent in 2009 is a near certainty.

So much for global warming . . .

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
...
Interesting way to look at the disaster that's our own making... I think
we need to fix our problems, urgent problems that affect the hordes of
people who would move away from the coasts (for example) but are unable
to do so. There's an economic issue that is being swept under the rug
with this sort of argument. Not only are the vast numbers of poor unable
to "just move," but the cost of relocating them and/or populations
centers is non-trivial, and would make the currect financial debacle look
like a zit on a flea's butt.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

By saying "just move," you trivialize the logistics of the problem, which
is something I haven't done. I didn't say it would be easy, I didn't say
it would be cheap. But there are many, many examples of former cities
which are now under lots of water. Those who refused to move either grew
gills or drowned. Probably doesn't matter a whole lot now, since they'd
have died a few thousand years ago anyway, but my point remains.

Building Pompeii and Herculaneum near the foot of Mt. Vesuvius was a reall
bad idea, as it turned out. Those who moved before the blast got to live
longer lives than those who were trying to build a big cork.

Like Venice and the Netherlands? My argument was that instead of spending
trillions to move those who can't move on their own, why not spend far less
dealing with the pollution, expanding sustainable energy technology, etc.?
Makes sense to me, but oh-my-god the government might have to make it a
priority. How terrible.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

So much for global warming . . .

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
. com...
Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

As for how much greenhouse effect is "just right," that is entirely
subjective.
I'm sure the dinosaurs were quite happy with the levvels of greenhouse
gasses present during their existence...as were teh whooly mammoths
during theirs. The earth changes. It always has, it always will and the
living beings on the earth either adapt or die. The onl;y difference
between us and the dinasaurs or mammoths is that we possess the hubris
to think we are capable of changing the earth to any but but slight
variances. I'm not saying that we should not be careful and guard what
we do for the preservationof our own species, but the idea that we are
responsible for global climitazation alone? The facts are that this
earth is cyclical and that it is presently entering a new cycle. Yes,
clean up the mess so we don't have to breathe it, eat it, or live in
swill but realize that the warming and cooling of the earth is beyond
our control short of a nuclear war.

The dinosaurs lasted for 100M years, likely until a catastrophic event
wiped them out over a very short period of time. The changes that are
being discussed have happened over a period of less than 200 years,
almost all of it is due to the industrial revolution. There's no doubt
that the earth's climate varies a lot. There's also no doubt that the
recent changes have been dramatic. If we don't address our own pollution,
we won't have to wait very long.

ANd maybe that's a good thing...

I like George Calin's joke about global warming and saving the planet...
something like... the planet will be just fine, but the people won't be
around... pack your bags folks....

Don't bother...you can't take it with you...

So much for global warming . . .

Capt. JG wrote:
"katy" wrote in message
. com...
KLC Lewis wrote:

Remove the money and power from the "global warming" issue and let's see
just how much "concern" remains.

At the present time, Environmental Science is being taught from an
economics standpoint in both high school and colleges in the US. That
conbtributes to the problem and obfuscates the real science that should be
studied.

Not at all. It's a reality-based approach. Environmental Science is
integrally linked to economics. Wasn't that an argument in this thread? If
you take the money away, the problem will go away, right?

Well it seems that Free Enterprise is recognizing the economic impact of
GW. Insurance companies are feeling its sting. See below article. I
think this argues for (proves?) an economic link. And since insurance
agencies are essentially in the business of predicting the future
(actuarial tables) then I would think they would represent the free
markets best predictions.

AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change

May 17, 2006

American International Group has joined the ranks of major insurers
committed to doing something about the increased risks the industry
faces due to climate change.
Advertisement

In a newly issued statement, the company said it "is actively seeking to
incorporate environmental and climate change considerations across its
businesses, focusing on the development of products and services to help
AIG and its clients respond to the worldwide drive to cut greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions."

Companies such as Munich Re and Swiss Re have long endorsed programs and
research aimed at finding solutions to what increasingly appears to be a
major threat facing the worldwide insurance community. AIG would appear
to be the first major U.S.-based insurer to do so.

"Climate change is increasingly recognized as an ongoing, significant
global environmental problem with potential risks to the global economy
and ecology, and to human health and wellbeing," the statement
continued. "AIG recognizes the scientific consensus that climate change
is a reality and is likely in large part the result of human activities
that have led to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the
earth's atmosphere. At the same time, market-based environmental
policies and potential new investments provide business opportunities
for AIG to address the problem. We will pursue these new opportunities
where we have the expertise and capacity to do so in ways that mutually
benefit AIG, its shareholders, employees, customers, and the global
community."

The full text is available on AIG's Website - www.aig.corporate.com, but
it's not prominently displayed. Locate "Corporate Responsibility, "
under that "environmental initiatives," go to the bottom to "Environment
and Climate Change."

So much for global warming . . .

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:52:42 -0500, hpeer said:

AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change

And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g

I was leaning toward that response myself. lol

So much for global warming . . .

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:11:49 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:52:42 -0500, hpeer said:

AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change

And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g

I was leaning toward that response myself. lol

You are leaning because you are not well supported.

Yes, AIG is the very model of fiscal responsibility. Uh huh.

So much for global warming . . .

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:39:43 -0500, Marty said:

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?

So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to spend
taxpayer
money subsidizing these installations?

So I take it you believe there is no need for the guvmint to use
taxpayer money to prevent Union Carbide from dumping as much toxic waste
in the environment as they feel like.

??????
Come on, Marty. I know you're more rational than to post such a
non-sequitur. Do you believe those wind farms offer enough profit so as
not
to require the taxpayers to shovel tax money at them?

Do you think we don't subsidize other industries?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

So much for global warming . . .

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 07:52:42 -0500, hpeer said:

AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change

And we all know how good AIG is at making economic decisions. g

So because they made bad decisions in one segment of their business, that's
supposed to mean that they're incompetent in others?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

So much for global warming . . .

A typical wind farm will run from $500 million to $2 billion, you think
tree huggers are providing the capital for these?

-

yep cause there are more of us than of you and we pay taxes just like
you do.
we also volinteer to clean up trash, mitigate dump sites, replant
trees, make parks, keep trials clear, fight wild fire, tend forests,
clean up creeks and rivers, teach kids how to do for themselves, and
several hundred other things.

while you conservitives dump **** in all the lands and waters and
build **** hole houses and in general pursue your god the doller.