Nobody "supports" climate change, just as nobody supports dying of old age. Of course these things continue to happen without much regard for our opinions.

brian-3288500: Much applause sent your way.

Too many consider climate change an issue that is up for public approval. It's like voting to see if the sky is blue.

Also, methinks Paul is a corporate rep?

Climate change is inevitable. It happened before man existed, it happened before the industrial revolution released any carbon into the atmosphere, and it will happen in the future regardless of what man does. The earth is like a living organism and it goes through cycles. By looking at ice cores in the arctic and tree rings on some very old trees scientists have been able to document that the earth has been through warming and cooling periods in the past. Just 40 years ago scientists were taking about cooling and the possibility of another mini-ice age. Today it is about warming. The truth is that this is all part of a natural cycle for our planet and the anthropomorphic component of it is being greatly exaggerated. This exaggeration is coming from both scientists who are looking to get more grant money to spend on studying their pet theories as well as business interests who are looking to make a buck off the fear of a global warming crisis. Climate change is something that is going to occur regardless of what we do and we will just have to learn to live with it and adapt as necessary. Buying into the hype and letting the government, driven by corporate money push things like carbon tax credits is absurd. It is just one more way to take more money out of your pocket and put it in theirs.

To help study the ice shelf in that location, it looks like the deep sea submarine guy would be able to navigate into any part of that area to get a more precise observation of whats happening. If he can do it in the trench, he should be able to do it there. And there are other groups that could also do the same thing. Lets take the guessing out of the investigation. We need real information.

These nuts just don't quit. Take note that the language has changed. The tern "studies" has no scientific meaning. Not unlike "jobs created or saved." Other than mentioning the term "scientists" in a feeble attempt to give some semblance of credibility to all of this, there was nothing scientifically done here. They created a computer program and put the numbers in. That's it. As has been the history with these nuts, if they don't like the result that spews out the just change to program so that it will spew out more alarming figures. Now-a-days any 5th grader can do that too. Say, do they even teach real science in schools anymore? Just wondering. For those of the global warming crowd, that means, in simple terms, that your results should be independently corroborated. Oh, and that doesn't mean that 10 different people plug the same numbers into the same computer program and come out with the same results. So far all we've heard is dire predictions and no results that match the predictions.

Witchiedude,

It probably took a pretty good scientist just to make the computer model. Can you make one? And you can't tell me that the thousands and thousands of researchers looking at this enormous problem are churning the facts just to scare someone for political or economic gain (that's the denial game, anger someone for political or economic gain). Maybe a few scientists have churned their numbers, but they would be an extreme minority. Maybe less than 1%. They put their scientific careers in great jeapordy if they get caught doing so. And then there are all the everyday folks who see it all around because they don't have political blinders on. Ever see any of the beetle devastated forests? Happened because of warming climate allowing the beetles to migrate further north. Ever see any of the hordes of Mexican doves that ran off all the native doves? Happened because of warming climate allowing them to move further north. The list goes on and on and on. But some people are so blinded because the Kochs and oil/big business gang do not want to spend money on regulations and cleanup. Money. And you're just the kind of nut they are dragging along. I consider people like you a threat to our survival.

Hell, maybe the mass migration of Mexican laborers is due to warming climates. LMAO

if the whole antarctic ice sheet melts oceans rise over 180 feet. Time will tell if that will happen. But perhaps they used a " computer program" to calculate that and according to witchrunner therefore shouldn't be believed.

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/frozen-planet/infographics.html?page=episode7

Hey Space Cadet,

I noticed that you gloss over the fact that the earth has been warming and cooling for a long time without man. If you can't make money off of it, I guess it isn't true!!

Space Captain, I can't figure out which side of this you are on. Was your first post just pure sarcasm? After reading the second, I can only assume so, but I didn't get that at first.

JS,

This exaggeration is coming from both scientists who are looking to get more grant money to spend on studying their pet theories as well as business interests who are looking to make a buck off the fear of a global warming crisis

As The Captain clearly states in his second post, which BTW I agree wholeheartedly with, it is the 'business interests' such as the KOCH brothers who are looking to "make a buck" by protecting their massive fossil fuel powered cash cows which put short term profits over long term survivability.

and witchrunner,

the controlled study type of "corroboration" which is the hallmark of scientific 'proof' is impossible in the case of the global warming experiment because we don't have a spare planet to use as a control. Instead, we are forging blindly ahead with the largest longitudinal study ever, a planet wide experiment to discover what may happen when we dig up all the ancient carbon deposits all over the earth and return that carbon to the atmosphere where it used to be billions of years ago. Predictions can be made based on paleontological evidence and also via computer modelling of current trends. Most predictions that have been made in the last ten years have fallen for short of the actual events which followed.

Frank, the rate at which the current warming is happening is far faster and has already gone far beyond what has happened in any recent epoch. The only possible additional variable which can explain this difference is human actions.

You all can ignore the warnings if you wish, but we will not.

Despite what mankind does or doesn't do, the earth will go through these cycles of heating and cooling - just like it did before we were here and as it will do after we are long gone.

And for the goofballs that think it's cows farting or people exhaling that's going to do us in, wrong, our children's future will be ruined by man - not the weather! Between the nukes floating around go knows where, biological weapons, and the radical extremists sharing this land - that is what will do us in.

Forget about scientists for a second. Just go online and watch any of the interviews featuring people who actually live in arctic climates speaking about the speed of the transformation they are seeing first hand - earlier summers, later winters, changing migration patterns of local animals. That should say it all.

We live in an age where Big Oil (the most profitable industry in the history of Earth) will give millions of dollars in grants annually to anyone dispensing propaganda that disproves climate change, in an attempt to keep their trillion dollar business model rolling until the wells run dry. Which, by the way, may very well happen during my children's lifetime.

Just so some of the non-scientists know how modeling works. Scientists do create computer programs that try to approximate as closely as possible that will happen in the future. But these models are based on past data and are tested by simply putting in old data and seeing if they correctly predict current ovservations. And as new data comes in, the models are constantly updated to make them more accurate and are re-tested over and over.

A good example are the hurricane models that are not only used to predict how many and the severity of hurricanes before the season hits, but also predict the paths of individual hurricanes. NWS currently has six hurricane models and uses the average of the six to make predictions. They have about 40 or so additional models that are not ready for prime time yet, but are still works in progress.

There are several problems with climate models. The first is that they are linear deterministic models that can only show slow incremental change. Weather (and hence climate) does not work in a slow incremental fashion, it is a chaotic system. Changes actually come in relatively large sudden chunks. For example the last ice age (the Younger Dryas) hit in less than 30 years and wiped out every man and large mammal in North America by the time it was halfway to full force. A model would have predicted that it would have taken several hundred years to develop, not thirty. Chaos theory is currently and immature form of math just as differential and integral calculus were in the recent past. We know that these things are predictable but currently just do not have the math and are trying to use outdated and inappropriate modeling methods because that is all we have to work with right now.

Another problem is that only with the advent of satellites have we been able to collect enough surface data to understand the effects of the oceans on global warming. And this is critical since most of the world is covered by water. And we still know more about the surface of Mars than the ocean currents. It is these currents that carry cold and warm water around and ultimately have buffered a lot of the effect of global warming. This "water buffer" is how we account for the 800-year lag between when the Industrial Revolution stared and when atmospheric effects were manifest. We still do not know nearly enough about the oceans and how they effect climate. But when temperatures change on a global scale, these deep ocean currents can stop very suddenly and reform into new currents. When this happens, the effects on animal and plant life are catastrophic. The Gulf Stream could stop flowing in as little as six weeks. Scary thought since it would plunge the UK into Greenland-like weather.

There really isn't a bunch of scientists who are getting tons of grant money to do research of any type. Research into global warming has been impeded by politicians for decades now and has almost completely dried up. No scientist gets grant money to study any "pet" theory. A scientist collects pilot data, pproposes a theory they explains all the data, and then seeks funding to do a larger study and revises the theory as necessary to make his theory fit all the facts. Every step of the way, other scientists constantly criticize the methodology and reject anything that appears amiss. In climate science perhaps the top 2% of all grant applications are actually funded. In science as a whole, about 8% are funded currently and it is still shrinking. R&D expenditures from all sources are at the lowest point, as a percentage of GDP, since before WWI (1910 to be exact) and are still falling.

There has been no serious discussion of whether global warming is happening or if it is man-made in around 40+ years for the simple reason that there is absolutely zero data to refute it. There has been no real discussion of whether the "tipping point" has been reached where we might be able to do something to prevent massive change in around 15+ years because there is simply no data to indicate that a solution even exists. And the current discussion is around the impact that trillions of tons of methane will have on the environment as it is released from warming tundra and oceans.

And for the genius deniers, I have a simply chemistry problem that any high school chemistry student could answer that illustrates your ignorance. A gallon of gasoline weight about 6 pounds. If you burn that gallon of gasoline in a typical automobile, what is the weight of the polutants (C, CO, CO2, SO2 but NOT water vapor) that come out of the tailpipe? It isn't a trick question. But if you don't understand the answer you do not know enough to even begin to discuss climate change.

(E-mail me if you can't figure out the answer.)

MikeyMike,

I would say his first post was satiric to the point of being silly. What I take from that is that we must really be in trouble when someone posts such idiocy and it really kinda sorta looks just the same as what the deniers and right wingers constantly post.

But I've been reading Spacey's posts for a few days and all I can say is that he has one really strange sense of humor.

And all these guys crying about the "global warming scientists" making big bucks from scaring all of us should look for where the real big bucks are at in this game. Why in the world would people like the Kochs be spending such money unless it was for making or saving them money. And since those guys don't play penny poker, the money they save by avoiding regulations must be tremendous. There is where the money is in all this. But there is a large proportion of our population who lack the intelligence to see the scam for what it is, and even those with slightly higher intelligence who jump on the denial wagon just to have their needed "enemy". Damned commie pinko libs, etc. etc. Sad state of affairs when these guys keep many others from being able to clearly see and understand what's happening to their world around them.

Just to show how downright silly these "Al Gore" beaters are, over in Russia there are many teams of "real scientists" studying the melting tundra. They are serious and are showing startling results. Start ranting and raving about Al Gore and they'd probably give you a funny look and say, "Al Who?" So you see, all this BS spewing from the deniers over here has no real position in the game of science at all. Just to keep voters over here confused enough and angry enough to vote in Tea Partiers. That's all.

The safest and most economical thing that we can do is to just wait it out and see what happens, we can deal with it when it gets here if it ever does!! This is an advanced scientific approach called "hoping that everything turns out OK" and as anyone who has ever used this method will tell you it produces excellent results, namely sticking someone else with a hell of a mess to deal with!!

So we can stand by and look like we are doing nothing but in reality we are actively waiting for our problems to go away all the while hoping that no one notices!!!

I'm not a scientist. I used to ski and climb in the mountains of Central Oregon. I started going over from the Oregon coast where I lived, about 1962. All the mountains around Bend, Oregon were full of snow and glaciers all summer. Now in 2012 when you look in August, there is no snow and no glaciers, they have all melted away, just look at the old pictures. Regardless, if you believe in Global Warming or not, the glaciers are gone, if believe that man caused this or not, the glaciers are still gone. The same will happen with the Antarctic ice sheets. Regardless what people think about what caused this, the ice sheets will melt and the sea levels will rise and change the face of our planet, for better, and worse. I worked in Antarctica for two Austral Summers '87-88, to really see how big the ice sheets are and how much water they hold, it's just unbelievable. I have lived around the ocean all my life, it is remorseless, unbelievably strong, and completely uncaring about the troubles and cares of man. If the ocean gets into the largest coastal cities, millions and millions of people will be displaced as the cities become uninhabitable!! If this is alarmist or not I'm sorry, imagine if 50 people showed up at your door needing help, now imagine if it were 500, don't even think about 5 million, and all of this is regardless, of who or what caused it, the end result will be the same!!

Barlow, more and more, as political deadlock remains, it is looking like the worst case scenario may come to pass. This could mean that continuing increases in CO2 lead to rising temps which eventually cause the melting of the permafrost (which as Plotinus has reminded us is already beginning), which releases billions of tons of methane (an even more potent greenhouse gas than CO2), which causes temps to rise even more, which may eventually cause the gigantic deposits of methane hydrate at the bottom of the ocean to vaporize, adding additional drive to the warming dynamic, eventually resulting in the complete melting of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps, causing a rise of ocean levels somewhere more than 50 feet, possibly more than 100 (I've seen various estimates), which would indeed, as you said, result in the complete inundation of major portions of coastal areas around the globe, displacing hundreds of millions of people.

Yes, for all you denialists, I said this could happen. It may occur. It is not certain. But if it does, it will be nightmarish, to say the least.

I'm not necessarily a "denier", but I can't quite get to the point of being a believer either. I remember in grade school in the in 70's my teachers scared the hell out of me by having us read all the articles about the coming ice age and how in 30 years the planet would run out of oil. I was always pissed at my parents and other adults for wasting energy and not caring about the future. Here it is, 35 years later and we have all the oil and gas we will need for another 100 years and the planet is facing a warming crises? It's hard to know what to believe. These issues are so complex and, in my opinion, beyond our ability to truly understand. There are so many variables. How much do we have control over? What can we do about it and how much will it cost? Tough questions and difficult answers.

space cadet: Really? Thousands and thousands? Really? You must have missed the recant recantation by Dr. James "Gaea" Lovelock admitting that he was alarmist without facts. There are hardly thousands and thousands out there. Also, you don't seem to realize all the scientist who have been shut out of the grant process because they don't abide by the global warming hysteria. Of course it was only about 30 years ago that these same people were in mass hysteria over global cooling. The fact is that there hasn't been any global warming over the past dozen or so years.

Just google "global warming hoax" and you will find a vast amount of information contradicting what the founder of the internet claims. The thing about these folks is that they aren't in it for the government money. Let's face it, you can't deny that if you are a "scientist" and you claim that your research shows there is no man-made global warming then you aren't going to be getting any more money.

Obviously, climate changes. It has for millions of years. Heck, we've thawed out from a number of "ice ages" over the history of the earth. Guess what? There is no evidence that there was one human being, one automobile or even one factory during those "global warming" periods. I've read hundreds of articles over the years and have not read one, I repeat, NOT ONE that establishes man-made global warming. Yes, I've read articles which leave more questions unanswered than answered, but never read one or even a conglomeration of them where there is anywhere near sufficient evidence of man-made global warming. And I challenge you to lead me to one. Heck, now-a-days, those who are trying to prove global warming just use the assumption that there is as part of their facts to establish that it exists. Sorry, but no science behind that. Heck, even this article, when boiled down, says that "if temperatures rise as projected by the UN..." Sorry, what science is that? We've already seen that all that UN stuff, as evidenced by the U of East Anglia fraud. And this is the basis for the UN conclusions. If you remember, they admitted that the complaints were valid, but concluded it still exists.

Oh, and if you want to have any credibility at all, you should drop the name calling. It just shows that you don't have the brains to support what you say.

I have no problem with people who want to believe they are contributing to global warming (assuming global warming is bad, which is an issue for another day), they should be perfectly free to do the things that they want to help the environment. But, that doesn't give you a right to tell others what they should do. In case you haven't figured it out yet, that is precisely why you have no credibility. All it is is the new socialism and excuse for government to bully people and take their money. Don't you find it at least mildly humorous that the biggest supporter of man-made global warming are also the biggest polluters? Take Al Gore. Heck he probably leaves a larger carbon footprint in one month that the average person does in their lifetime. Every year it seems like there is a conference on global warming which once again leaves a larger carbon footprint in one day than the average person does in a lifetime. If they were so concerned about the environment why not have an online conference? Of course the reason is that they wouldn't get their vacations in and see exotic places.

...but never read one or even a conglomeration of them where there is anywhere near sufficient evidence of man-made global warming. And I challenge you to lead me to one.

Here ya go, from the IPCC report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

Now you can go ahead and attempt to pre-emptively dismiss that...

We've already seen that all that UN stuff, as evidenced by the U of East Anglia fraud.

But the poor judgement of two post grad students at East Anglia does not invalidate the work of the hundreds of professionals who"conglomerated" their work, to use your phrase, in order to create this report. If you have not actually read it, I would challenge you to do so.

Also, anyone who cites past ice ages as a reason for skepticism should be aware that natural variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide (for example, due to ocean absorption and release of the gas) are believed to have been a major factor in the temperature changes that occurred. Perhaps not the primary or first causal factor, and perhaps with some time lag, but very important nonetheless.

'One study, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, used a computer model to project what would happen in Antarctica's Weddell Sea if temperatures rose in line with U.N. projections for 2100.'

Now take a look at the data from current studies that use data starting in 1979, when the FIRST accurate measurements could be recorded by mankind...

The latest data on Antarcta ice levels...

A. A new surface mass balance (SMB) map of Antarctic shows no significant trend for the period 1979-2010. Note that this is a modeling study, but the authors claim it is in good agreement with 750 surface measuring stations. See full paper and graphics here.

B. Antarctica reached the highest levels of ice coverage and volume ever recorded in 2007. And the average Antarctica temperature has DECREASED during the last 40+years... According to; NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, SMMR, & SSMI...

C. The lastest sea ice coverage for Antarctica is ABOVE the normal for the last 30+years and has been for months. see http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png/

D. The GRACE data has indicated a ice volume LOSS of 24+cubic miles of ice a year for the last decade. Out of a TOTAL of OVER 5.4+MILLION cubic miles of ice...

Here is a Nov 2011 article concerning the Antarctic ice melting and the CO2 levels...

By analysing ancient algae found in deep-sea core samples, Professor Matthew Huber and his colleagues determined that the mile-thick ice which now covers the south polar continent formed around 34 million years ago. At that stage the atmosphere held much more CO₂ than it does now, some 600 parts per million (ppm) as opposed to today's level of 390 ppm.

There is often concern that the Antarctic ice sheet might melt due to global warming (though in fact, despite much publicity over losses of ice from the Western peninsula, Antarctic ice has been steadily increasing in extent for the last 40 years). It would seem that this is highly unlikely given current and near-future levels of atmospheric CO₂: at current rates of increase it will take a century at least to reach 600 ppm, the level at which the ice sheet formed itself, and higher levels would be needed to actually start it melting.

According to Huber, "If we continue on our current path of warming we will eventually reach that tipping point. Of course after we cross that threshold it will still take many thousands of years to melt an ice sheet."

The new research is published in premier boffinry mag Science, here.

I'm not going to rush out and worry about a computer simulation, that is not VERIFIED by REAL LIFE data. IMO - The same as Mann's Hockey Stick temperature graph and how reliable that has been... Ha! Ha!

The key point of the present study is that ice can break off and slide into the sea without actually melting (except around the edges where exposed to warm water). Add that possibility to the confirmed melt rate in Greenland, and there's a strong potential for significant sea level rise.

Confirmed melt rate in Greenland???

76+Cubic miles a year melting out of almost one MILLION+cubic miles...

According to the GRACE satellite over a 9+year period...

Or up to a 10% INCREASE in ice levels sense the 1950's according to multiple studies conducted by NSIDC...

I'm waiting......

Right wing spin? Well, Senator Lugar just wrote that no one in the Republican party can make the slightest nuance about global warming. Wonder what would happen to them if they did? Tea Partiers run them out of town after tar and feathering them? I wonder why Lugar wrote that? I get the feeling he's telling them to take their strict ideological views, stick them up their asss, and rotate, oops, I mean spin on them.

It was already in the 1st comment above. Didn't you notice the foul smell????

Actually this article has tons of errors in it...

1st off the sea level WILL NOT RISE...

look at the data... the sea floor is sinking...

PLEASE LOOK UP POST GLACIAL REBOUND EFFECT...

that is why our ocean currents are getting stalled... and all the earthquakes...

these MSN stories need to be told by someone with a brain... haha

Jonathan,

Well, you won't have to worry about MSN calling you to take the job.

Is it accurate to say that we are now living with what our grandparents and theirs did to us? Damn those who decided to start the industrial revolution! If we are the cause of all this......well the only solution is less people, that is it. Less people.

All goes back to the concept of "Manifest Destiny" which the righties still cling to with their dying clenched fists (just like their guns). "Manifest Destiny" says that god done given us this vast play land called America to do with as we please. "Damn the indians, damn the buffaloes, damn the mexicans, damn the environment - it is ours". Unfortunately for them though, that kind of attitude has no place in a civilized modern world...

Atomic Godzilla,

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic about this suggestion, but decreasing the population load would be an excellent start to getting the global warming problem under control. Conversely, the more the population increases, the worse the problem will become. It's not a joke.

@Evenstar,

Try billions of tons a day. And that is only starting to include methane.

Actually, about 30 billion tons of CO2 annually at current rates (a little more if you include the other GHGs), so about a billion tons every 12 days.

So why is it that in all the world, it's only the Republicans in the United States who think that way? The rest of us understand more about the science, and while we are too late in preventing some warming, we are not too late to prevent some of the worst.

Because it isn't only the republicans that think that way, Dennis. And I'm not even asking you to "think that way," you can continue to think any way you like. I simply stated a truth about climate change, and that we had better be able to handle it - so you disagree with that truth? The fact is we can talk about cutting emissions all we want, but it just... won't.... happen. I mean really - do you think we, humankind - globally - are capable of doing that? Without a drastic reduction in population, global and extreme changes in the way our economies and politics work, etc. - ways that everyone can agree on - well, I just don't see that happening.

The truth is we will run out of oil and coal before we stop using it - barring some incredible leap of technology, that's just the way it is.

I await and hope for the technological leap. But I'm not holding my breath.

Why is it that only liberals believe that science becomes fact when you have a "consensus"? Why is it that liberals ignore the thousands of scientists, climate and weather experts who disagree with the concept that man produced CO2 is the cause of warming? Instead of refuting they simply call them crack pots or much worse.

What climate are you striving to establish Dennis? The climate of the 1990s? 1950s? 1910? 1880s? And if you are able to establish that climate somehow by cutting man made CO2 how will you deal with a volcanic eruption that completely throws off your carbon totals? What if there are more than one? Will that require even greater cuts in CO2 production? Will it mean that at some point we might have to stop ALL CO2 production to keep a "stable" climate? Do you really think that is possible?

Elvoid...

Yes it naturally happens....over thousands and thousands of years, Antarctic ice core sample prove that. The core samples also prove we are speeding up the warming....drastically.

American - I highly recommend you do some reading on artifacts in ice cores. There is a LOT of debate on how reliable that information is since we really do not understand at the microscopic level what is happening to those tiny samples of gasses in ice that is under tremendous pressure and is moving.

As for warming/cooling taking multiple thousands of years to happen...the Little Ice Age cooling happened over a period of decades. There are also other warming periods in our history (using the ice cores as evidence...ironic isn't it) which indicate warming happening in well under a thousand years as well. Those were all natural in their occurrence.

American Socialist -

You miss the point.

However, for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct. So help me here:

1. Explain - realistically - how we get a world that is ever thirsty for more energy; that has diverse and divergent political goals for just as diverse and divergent societies; explain how we get beyond talking about reducing emissions and actually, truly reducing them on a global scale?

OK, OK - I'll admit that was a trick question - I know you can't answer it - neither can I.

But again - for the sake of argument - let's say man magically reduces carbon emissions in a substantial and effective way tomorrow. Further, lets imagine that this has the desired effect you believe it will, and global warming is slowed.

Now what? I contend the globe still will warm, or freeze, or something over time, regardless of what we do - and you also know that is true. We need to know how to handle that - and if we indeed can "handle that," (and there are several not too "out there" proposals, not beyond our current technological reach, being studied) why wouldn't we look at that as a solution to the current problem as well? Frankly, some of the ideas are much more realistic that culling the population by about 2 billion and asking China to please, pretty please stop growing.

Yes, the earth will still warm, naturally.

We just had the hottest spring ever in recorded history...ever.

The problem really lies with big oil and coal, they own Washington and will continue to use the earth as their personal toilet until there's nothing left....all for profit....sad.

One trump card though....this planet cannot sustain our current population, the amount of co2 humans expel far exceeds the the O2 the plants reproduce to counteract it....so we are kinda screwed on that one.

What pises me of is this attitude I hear from the far right basically saying "well, since global warming doesnt exist....f*ck the environment"

We got one planet, one home.....we should treat it as such.

American Socialist:

Now there isn't one thing there you said that I'd totally disagree with (might quibble on whether the problem lies with big oil/coal or more simply with the reality of our global energy needs and what is required to sustain them) and a couple of things I totally agree with.

And I'm what I'd call a middle of the road, capitalist kind of guy with slight conservative leanings - you know, the kind that leans conservative overall but thinks things like gays should be allowed to marry (I mean really, what exactly IS the problem there? Other than the puritanical proclivities of some); that the environment is indeed important; that cutting taxes can be a good idea but it is most certainly not the only or necessarily the best idea (that depends on all kinds of factors), etc. So anyway - maybe there is hope if conversations like this can occur without devolving into name calling and sensationalism.

The biggest differences between you and I would probably be how to treat the problem - not whether or not it exists.

@Socialist - Your obvious solution is right in front of you.

Plant more plants. You made the claim. The solution is then simple. Plant more plants.

"One trump card though....this planet cannot sustain our current population, the amount of co2 humans expel far exceeds the the O2 the plants reproduce to counteract it....so we are kinda screwed on that one."

PLANT MORE green leafy stuff.

As to the "plant more plants" suggestion, there are those (and for full disclosure let me state clearly that I am not one of them) who seriously argue that the coming increase in temperatures and CO2 level will provide two blessedly wonderful benefits: First, that the temperate climatic zone where most farming now occurs will shift northward into Canada and most significantly Siberia, providing vastly more enormous tracts of lands (Whoa! Monty Python alert!), in which to grow corn and wheat, and secondly, the higher CO2 level will increase plant yields, thus providing a one-two bang fer yer fossil fuel buck, and thereby staving off the possibility of global famine. /sarcasm on... Whoo-hoo, keep drivin' yer SUV! We're saving the starving orphans! /sarcasm off.

Like I said, some people argue this as possible benefit, I see it as though, if in fact this occurs (and that's a BIG if), it will only possibly ameliorate the extremely negative results of increasingly dangerous and powerful storms, flooding of coastlines all of the globe (goodbye Florida and New Orleans!) and the possibly disatrous spreadof tropical diseases.

Hangonmoktag,

I heard that pot plants just love CO2 and consume more in 30 mintues than a redwood does in a year. We should all go out and plant us a few hundred.

MikeyMike,

Maybe in a warmer world things could get lush and tropical, kinda like in the dinosaur days. Problem is our eco-systems are falling out right and left all around us and that kinda makes the future difficult to see. All one could say is that it could be really different. And going through all those changes could very possibly tank our great civilization. Doubt if there are many out there who could take a rock, flake a blade, and survive.

@mikeyMike,

The "benefits" you cite are not from scientific, but rather fossil fuel industry sources. The shift in temperate zone does not pan out. What happens is just the opposite (and one of the reasons that some people argue to call it global climate change) is that basic patterns remain as long as the ocean currents keep running. But fronts become stronger and much more violent with much greater ability to penetrate further south in the US. What would happen in Florida is an example. Florida would get more violent thunderstorms and more rain, but in less frequent events. Agriculture would suffer. But the killer would be that Florida would also get more freezes in the winter because the fronts, being stronger, would penetrate further south, just as other front would penetrate further north in Asia. This would limit, not expant agriculture.

I'll give you a better example. I live in Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Roll Tide.) I grown and hybridize irises as a hobby. I have around 100 cultivars of irises and add a few more every year. My wife does the sdame with daylillies and has about double the number of cultivars. We have peach, pear, fig, plum, pecan, apple, and pomegranate trees as well as several plots of blackberries. Not survivalists or anything, just enjoy fresh fruit and flowers. The last 12 months have been record warmth. As a result I had no plums or pears because no blooms appeared. I have only two peaches where I should have 40-50 on the tree. All of my wife's daylillies bloomed, but at very confused times, only four of my irises bloomed. One pomegranate instead of 10-20. This is because plants require a certain amount of cold weather in order to propagate naturally. Planting wheat in Siberia to replace Ukrainan wheat that gpoes away will never happen. The Ukraine gets two crops of wheat a year. An "improved" Siberia would only eke out one at best and in most years a late season fronst or violent weather systems would detrroy most of that. Alabama would see many more tornadoes as fronts become more violent. The northeast would see more snow because the warmer the winter air is the more moisture that would be dumped as snow --- as what happened this year. If in just one year the monsoon rains fail to come to India, Bangladesh, and Southern China (as every climate model shows with only tiny increases in temperature) a billion people could starve in a single year and there would be nothing the rest of the world could do about it. Change only works when it happens very slowly over hundreds of thousands of years and plants and animals and societies have an opportunity to adapt.

The last time we had a sudden climate event ended about 11,500 years ago at the very birth of agriculture and settlements. It was called the Younger Dryas. This event has a lot of characteristics that parallel the current global warming. The cause is theorized to be the dumping of the largest fresh-water lake in the world into the Atlantic, a lake that had been held back by an ice dam that was a remnant of the last ice age. When this happened, the Atlantic Conveyor stopped and Europe was plunged into a 1300-year ice age. In North America every man and large mammal became extinct. All of this happened in about a 30-year period +- 5 years. While it is still almost impossible to model the suddenness of the event, it was what it was. Within a 25-35 year period virtually everything in North America was pushed to the brink of extinction. And that did not result in improved crop yields in Brazil either.

The "some will benefit" reasoning is nothing more than rationalization. A net change is a net change. One group of people that is interested in climate change is beyond a doubt one of the most conservative in the world --- the Pentagon. And even they see that climate change will most likely forment most of the social unrest that is the greatest existential threat to this country in the nect 50-100 years.

And the idea that higher CO2 levels will increase crop yields is BS. Plants require both oxygen and CO2 that are taken in in "transpirational cycles." Were you asleep in biology when they discussed cellular aspiration? Boring, but you would realize that plants would benefit more from an increase in oxygen than CO2 and that they are also greater producers of O2 than CO2. Since all photosynthesis and most growth occurs during the oxygen (daylight) side of the equation, too much CO2 and reduced O2 would result in slower growth and slower photosynthesis.

Only idiots actually argue that global climate change would have any offsetting benefits. No reputable scientist would be that stupid.

Chris, as I thought I had gone to great pains to state clearly, the position I described is not one which I subscribe to. Your comments seem to be set in a tone of argument or contrast to what I posted, but I personally am in agreement with most of what you've said.

I am sorry if I confused you by stating a position which I do not adhere to, however, I am able to listen to and consider opposing points of view.

Were you asleep in biology when they discussed cellular aspiration?

This verges on insulting. The photosynthesis equation looks like this: 6 CO2 + 6 H20 = C6H12O6 + 6 O2 this means that the plant takes in CO2 and produces oxygen, in the presence of sunlight. Yes, it can partially run the other way, but mostly means that an increase in CO2 means an increase in plant photosynthesis. If you don't get this, ask your local "indoor gardening" expert to explain it to you.

Only idiots actually argue that global climate change would have any offsetting benefits. No reputable scientist would be that stupid.

If that was meant to imply that I might be an idiot because I had been willing to consider all sides of the larger picture, I would take offense, but since I am not a "reputable scientist" I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were not directly referring to me.

@mikeyMike,

Sorry if I was too blunt. But 1) I would remind you AGAIN that photosynthesis only takes place in sunlight and the arpiration cycle reverses at night. Both oxygen and CO2 are both inspired and aspired as waste gases, but the net is:

"Cellular respiration (process that uses oxygen to break sugar into energy for life functions) and photosynthesis (green plants converting sunlight energy into sugars using water and carbon dioxide) are distinct and separate processes. Animals only use cellular respiration. Plants do not have muscles and the other functions necessary in animals functioning that require a high levels of oxygen. Plants also CAN NOT take the energy directly for their energy needs from photosynthesis. Photosynthesis produces a far greater amount of oxygen and sugars, etc. than the small amount the plant requires to produce its energy
needs, but only during the day when the sun light is available! During the night, the plant actually uses oxygen it has left over from the daylight photosynthesis or takes the oxygen from the air surrounding the plant to meet its energy needs. This is not nearly the amount of oxygen an animal needs over the same period of time. During the day the plant produces far more oxygen from photosynthesis than it produces carbon dioxide from cellular respiration. It is a waste gas and if not expelled from the plant, can cause serious harm. Since plants do not utilize large amounts of oxygen over a twenty-four hour period (ideal conditions, winter is another issue), oxygen wins. It is a good thing too, for ALL the oxygen in the atmosphere is the result of plants producing far more oxygen than they need."

Take a deep breath! I hope this helps. The reason for the CO2 is not for phytosynthesis --- it is to balance the equation. The oxygen produced is what drives cellular aspration and the growth process. And plants produce far more oxygen that they need already, releasing most of it as waste gases. An increase in CO2 would NOT cause more photosynthesie and would NOT increase either cellular respitation as a result since the excess O2 would be gotten rid of at night as a waste gas. If cellular respiration is not increased, plant growth is not increasesand there is no direct correlation between the amount of photosynthesis (except in the case of winter growth) and things like crop yields or heaviness of growth. That's how my 9th grade biology teacher explained it and it is still the same cellular aspiration cycle today, of which photosynthesis is still only one facet that is a neat trick that plants can do without lungs, but that is about it.

I agree with most of your statements and think that most of your posts are pretty well thought out. But sometimes it seems to me that in an attempt to be "open-minded" that you go astray and accept non-scientific opinions and speculation without support as though they were somehow equal in consideration to what is now trillions of direct observations and some incredible amount of possible indirect observations. It is difficult enough to try to filter out the rhetoric without introducing speculation. The idea that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will increase plant yields is such a theory --- it breaks the rules of biology as we know them.

Like I suggested earlier... tell that to the guys at the "indoor gardening" supply store and they'll tell ya how to increase "crop" yield by pumping in extra CO2. I suppose all those guys growing indoor "cash crops" just love wasting money on CO2 tanks that, according to you, don't really do anything. (You do understand what I'm talking about here, right?)

With indoor growing, increased CO2 can be effective because additional water and light can also be added easily ... not so in the real outdoor world. There is research showing that some changes in the plants used by farmers (for example, perennials versus annuals) could sequester a lot of carbon, but it wouldn't be anywhere near a total solution.

I'm not touting this as a "solution" to the AGW problem, although Hakon may have been sarcastically doing so. What Chris and I are debating is whether or not there might possibly be a slight positive benefit in terms of agricultural yields due to the increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. And before you get yourself all in a snit again Chris, even if this does occur, no, I repeat once again, it would be nowhere near enough to compensate for all the potential harms which will also be coming, which I have gone to some lengths to mention in detail as well, I am simply discussing whether this increased plant growth is possible. This is known as being open minded and considering all sides of an issue.

As for the amount of water delivered to crops, that can certainly be controlled through irrigation. Also, in a warming atmosphere, water vapor content will increase which will result an overall increase in total precipitation. Where these increases may occur is presently not known and there will also be decreases in precipitation in various areas as climatic zones shift. But there will be more rainfall and paradoxically, more snow during winters as well.

I'm still missing something here folks. What is the desired end state? To "slow" warming? That's just kicking the can down the road. If you believe all we can do is slow down how fast the earth warms then wouldn't the intelligent thing be to focus the money and resources on adapting to a warmer climate and moving on that issue with the most emphasis? I mean, how much do you really expect to "slow" this warming down in say the next 10 to 30 to 50 years? I would argue...not much unless someone comes up with an entirely new way to produce energy.

So, the world is going to warm and it may warm faster than normal (not unprecedented by the way). Accept that and start doing something about what is actually happening vice pie in the sky nonsense about trying to stop something you KNOW you are not going to get the rest of the world to agree to.

Consensus is how we establish what is true, versus what is not. When new data contradicts the theory, the theory changes to account for the data. Models are always changing because we are always gathering new data, and finding new complexities. We humans long ago began affecting the Earth's climate. First our polution clouded the sun, and the climate cooled. Then we had the Clean Air Act, and soon thereafter the skies cleared, and we began warming back up... then it continued beyond what had been predicted, then they included CO2 and whoops! Turns out CO2 wasn't covered in the clean air act. We emit billions of tons each year. All the volcanes of Earth don't get past Millions of tons. Yes I remember the cooling after Mt St. helens went... so one Volcano can have an effect. It's part of the data. But you are right, getting humanity to get together and do something about it will not be possible, as long as people who stand to profit from the status quo are able to pay for research to back their claims and sow doubt along political lines. You claim that the left has been duped. The left claims that the right has been duped. The TRUTH is that half of America has been fooled, and they are too sure they are right to even go look at the numbers.

@JJMurray,

The reason that current climate models do not accurately preside it that they are always on the short slow side of the equation. In other words, it is because warming is happening much more quickly than predicted. This is primarily caused by the reliance on linear deterministic models that can only predice slow incremental change. The issue is compounded by the fact that they are backloaded with too much old date which tends to skew the predictions in a linear fashion.

What these scientists are doing is a micro model where they simplify the equation by only looking as one aspect --- Antarctic ice shelves. That worls a little better. But the issue is still the same --- climate (and weather) is a chaotic system, not a linear system. We are in a place with chaos theory where we were once with integral and differential calculus. We know there is a system of math that makes supposedly random events predictable but we haven't worked out the math yet. Thousands of mathematicians and grad students are working on it, but progress takes time because of the way that math works as a science. If you want to read more about it, I would suggest googling "chaos theory" and "strange attractors" and a book on Chaos by Gliek (sp?)

There is currently little to no money being spent on "reversing" climate change and very little on attenuating it. The reason is that the "tipping point" discussion phase ended about 15 years ago when science decided that the point at which we could reverse or amerliorate its worst effects had already passed. Most of this came when the buffering effect of the oceans was better understood and scientists realisted that there was about an 800-year time lag that they were ignoring. Almost all the science right now is going toward looking at the effects of trillions of tons of methane released from thawing tundra and the sublimation of methan hydrates in the oceans.

And the snow in June would happen in a warming situation, not in a situation where the earth was cooling as you suggest. The physicis is simple. Cold air can hold less moisture than warmer air. As the air warms both the amount of snow and the "snow season" increase. When the air is colder, there is less moisture and the snow is less, though it might appear fluffier. Your thinking is kinda backwards.

Your reasoning that the models do not predict accurately because they estimate low 1) doesn't hold up because they have been been predicting high so far, 2) does not address why they cannot predict actual events in the past, and 3) if true means they aren't accurate models and why in the world would you run inaccurate models if you could run accurate ones...unless of course you CAN'T create an accurate one.

You say there is little to no money being spent on "reversing" or attenuating climate change? Are you serious? What do you think all of this money is being spent on? The whole purpose of the Kyoto agreement was to attenuate climate change and billions were spent trying to follow those protocols. The endless conferences and UN studies ALL are aimed at reducing the effect of man on climate change, in other words either attenuating or reversing climate change...more billions spent. Carbon exchanges (more billions) entire purpose is to reduce carbon (in theory) so that the reduction will attenuate warming. We're into the TRILLIONS of dollars spent already and that doesn't even touch how much is being spent on "studies".

As for chaos theory, thank you for making my point. We do NOT understand our climate well enough to predict it in any accurate fashion. You say it's because it is a chaotic system, that's fine by me. I simply consider it to be so complex that we have no where near the capabilities at this point to try and model it let alone understand all of it.

The snow in June occurred during the Little Ice Age which was during a cooling period. This isn't about how MUCH snow, it's about snow occurring in months when it normally would not happen, in NYC. It is not because there was more moisture in the air, it was because the air was cold enough to ALLOW snow to form. My thinking isn't backwards, you're just arguing a different issue.

As we saw in 2008.

Ice age graphs don't agree with you. We are in a rising trend coming out of an Ice Age. Perfectly within the norm for the time period we are in.

Have you ever looked at Ice Age graphs? We've had several over the last million years. Every 100,000 years or so BOOM we have another glaciation.

So what "caused" the warming periods after each glaciation?

There weren't any SUV's around back then...

We are well above and far beyond the "norm" with no end in sight, and in fact the rate of warming/ice melting seems to even be increasing beyond even the most dire of predictions made less than five years ago.

I think most of us are getting a little tired of hearing about how there were no SUV's when the ice ages ended. The reasons why ice ages begin and end are fairly well understood, and naturally varying greenhouse gas levels are one of those reasons, along with the long-term cycles in the Earth's orbit and axis tilt, for example.

Scientists are well-aware of both the MWP and the LIA, but both of those have explanations, and were likely not as severe as the present climate change will be (or already is). Do some research on temperature reconstructions such as the 2,000-year northern hemisphere history published by Moberg, et.al. (2005).

The point is that where we're headed is very likely not the "right climate" for human civilization. Do we really want rising sea levels, more storms and droughts, disruption of food production, etc.?

Just remember cleaner air and water means higher cost for goods. Remember just two years ago when diesel was the cheapest motor fuel? It is now more expensive than premium gas. Think about the very poor when you make policies. Clean air does the poor no good if they can't afford to live.

Clean air does everyone, and especially the poor, a lot of good if it decreases health care costs due to less asthma, lung cancer and other medical issues.

Tell the poor as the gas meter hits the century mark when they fill up and have no money left for other essentials.

If we had better mass transit, they wouldn't need to worry about the cost of gas.

Cleaner air and water only means a higher cost for goods in the short-term (a couple of decades perhaps). In the long-term, dirty air and water will only progressively increase the cost of goods and services.

Thank you for mentioning that MikeyMike. Europe and Japan have had high-speed trains for years. They may still have many drivers, but it does make a big difference, their systems are efficient and carry a lot of passengers.

I check on the education of many high-profile climatologists. First, there is no such thing as a degree in climatology. They are generally people with a degree in physics, geology, chemistry or biology. These are people who became climatologists because they can't put their degree to practical use such as engineering or being doctors. They are the chiropractors of science. If they are good at what they were trained to do, they wouldn't be climatologists.

Road Warrier, If deniers like yourself can't refute the information they attack the climatologists.

Climatologists typically need at least a bachelor degree in climatology or other related field. Some employers prefer applicants with a master or doctorate degree and extensive experience. Prospective climatologists often complete courses in climatology, atmospheric science, meteorology, physics, mathematics, astronomy, and oceanography. Many aspiring climatologists complete internships while pursuing their education to gain practical experience in the field. Most employers provide some on the job training to enable new climatologists to learn the policies and procedures. Climatologists must complete continuing education throughout their careers to keep their skills current and stay up to date with advancements in the field.

Got any other excuses to reject the notion of global warming?

When I was in college, everyone took meteorology because it was what we called a cripp course, an easy elective A. Physics, calculus and chemistry were just core courses required for entry into more specific fields. A math or physics degree by itself won't get you too many job offers. That's why these people became climatologists.

BTW, these climatolgists want to stay employed like everyone else. If they don't generate data that is favorable to their desired end, the grants stop coming. Lie if you have to. The money must keep coming in or they will be on the unemployment line. In the business, it is called milking the project.

All 23 climate models have failed the test. From 1998 to 2012 the temperature has fallen. Even CRU admits it.

Hakon Montag, can you post a link to verify this claim of yours?

Warrior, like I said, if you can't come up with credible evidence to the contrary (credible meaning the opinions of more than 3% of the world's experts on atmospheric science and other fields relating to climatology then shut up. Your attack on the credentials of people in these fields shows how hollow your argument is.

Jack,

"Opinions" are like @!$%#s. Everyone has one, even you. It's not science, doesn't use the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, theory and scientific law, in that order. You libs are ready to declare scientific law when global warming has barely passed the hypothesis stage. If I asked a thousand scientists if energy is mass times the speed of light square? The answer would be unanimously yes. You said 3% of the so-called scientists agree on the answer of global warming. That means 97% have doubts.

R.W. since you seem to like analogies with the history of physics, when Einstein originally proposed his theory of relativity it was greeted with extreme skepticism. Only the fact that various predictions that the theory made in regard to the actual position of the planet mercury in it's orbit, (which was rather difficult to verify at the time), sufficed to confirm the theory. We are of course not able to perform a controlled experiment with Mercury, so observation , which came AFTER the theory served as it's confirmation.

The same is happening now with the Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis. A theory has been proposed, which some, like yourself, still reject, but additional observations will likely cotinue to confirm it's predictions, as they have done, so far. If the climate does in fact begin to substantially cool down (and no, one or two years of a lack of warming doesn't count), then perhaps the theory will be proven to be wrong. But so far that hasn't happened. For the last 120 years, average temperatures have been on a slowly rising trend, and while there may be a dip here or there once in a while (which is fully to be expected), the overall rising trend is actually increasing. This continues to present confirmation of the predictions of the theory. I don't what it will take to convince you and other doubters of the simple truth, the earth is getting warmer, and to a large degree it's because of us.

road, when I referred to opinions I thought you'd have the brains to understand that they were opinions based on their research. Keep your GD head in the sand for all I care because you'd never be able to recognize if it were above or below ground even if your eyes were open. And btw, science isn't a math game, it's based on probability. That's probably news to you but not to people who have graduated from high school.

Still no link Hakon?

Don't sweat it Jack, most of these folks probably have no clue what sigma refers to, and I'm not about to try to explain it.

Good idea. When I need to unwind a bit I come to these threads to have some fun tweaking the tiny minds of these deniers. They have nothing to base their opinions while the body of research they're attacking is so formidable. It's like I stated in another post, debating deniers is like playing ping pong with an armless person.

Check the list of colleges and universities in the College Blue Book to make sure that climatology is not a field with a separate degree.

And as far as mathematicians not finding employment easily; for those who can 'do the math', no other field offers higher wages faster, more permanently and/or with the most flexibility.

My degree is in refereeology. I pronounce the contest between Road Warrior and Mikey (and cohorts) to be a resounding victory for Road Warrior.

Hey, Road... Good job. Getting the converted to see the actually reality of the climate is like keeping a hat on a dog. Good luck. Flogging them with it as you do....priceless.

All 23 climate models have failed the test. From 1998 to 2012 the temperature has fallen.

1998 was a warm El Nino year. Climate models that include El Nino/La Nina match the data fairly well. An "apples to apples" comparison between two La Nina years (1996 and 2011 for example) shows a very clear global temperature increase of about 0.20 deg C, close to the long-term trend since the 1970s, and close to the rate predicted by models.

It'll be hilariously ironic when we finally run almost completely out of oil, and it will at last be "economical" to drive a hydrogen powered fuel cell car, but you'll have to pay $500.00 for tube of grease to lube the axles.

Recent research shows that increased methane levels (yes, very likely due to dino farts), may have been a contributing factor, but the one two punch of a large asteroid impact at Chicxulub and the massive antipodal volcanic eruptions known as the Deccan traps which followed are the more significant causes of the dinosaurs' demise.

Stick to your rocks doc and leave atmospheric science to the experts. Given the potential severity of the problem I'd rather rely on the opinions of 97% than the other 3%.

Ah! A believer in the 97% consensus...that never happened. I hope some day you read the fine print and find out that 77 out of 79 scientist is not a world wide consensus.

If you say so, Rockdoc.

Hakon, you're absolutely wrong unless the entire population of all national or other major scientific institutions in the world totals 79 scientists. Get your facts straight rather than cherry pick Faux Noise for your information.

I challenge to name one scientific institution anyplace in the world that has come out denying the existence of global warming. JUST ONE!

On that note, one prediction states that it will be best to move 75 miles inland.

Yes, of course the geologic record shows that "sea levels will rise," etc. That's one of the reasons we're confident it could happen again, this time due primarily to human causes.

My the state of denial is very full isn't it?

And yes - the Earth has been thru these cycles before. The really big difference is - humans weren't around then. We have influenced this cycle - and not in a good way.

To think that all of the pollution we have created, and all the raping of this planet that has occurred at our hands - has no effect on our planet is absolutely absurd.

We (as supposedly intelligent beings) have to start taking responsibility for our actions. This planet is not indestructable - and in case you haven't noticed...there aren't a lot of other "Earths" out there for us to move to.

We should all be very worried about this. And we should all be doing all that we can to start trying to reverse the negative impact we've had...because make no mistake...the Earth will shake us off like the annoying pests we are.

And all of you nay-sayers will be crying the loudest demanding that someone "do something" about it.

Yoomama says: You worry too much about things you have no control over. Tell China and India your sob story.

You're repressing and boring indigokid. Go learn some science

In today's world, volcanic eruptions and forest fires don't even come close to releasing 30 billion tons of CO2 annually (the amount released by human activity). More like 1% to 3% of that amount. Check out the facts online, for example at usgs.gov. The short-term effect of volcanoes is cooling, but we can't depend on that to stop global warming. A large asteroid hit could indeed be very bad news, but fortunately no known asteroids are currently on a collision course with Earth.

Do you mean exponential? If so, there is no such word as exponentiality.

If you can't even spell what you are trying to argue, it is difficult to take you seriously.

Typical regressive I am better than thou liberal rebuttal. You obviously got the jist of my statement.

Ohhhhhh and I forgot MikeyMike <smirking> teeeheee isnt that a cute. If my spelling is the worst thing to happen to you this day, then i guess you got it going on.

road, another idiotic remark that gives us insight into your IQ. You might be interested to know that there are many hydrogen-powered vehicles on the road right now. Better go hide in your bunker and confine your shopping and other errands to online activity, pal.

FACT CHECK ON BERING SEA ICE 2011-12 :

As winds from the north pushed Arctic ice southward through the Bering Strait, the ice locked together and formed a structurally continuous band known as an ice arch, which acts a bit like a keystone arch in a building. The ice arch temporarily held back the ice behind it, but as the winds continued, the arch failed along its southern edge, and ice cascaded south through the strait into the Bering Sea. Sea ice also piled up on the northern coast of St Lawrence Island, streaming southward on either side of it.

As for Arctic ice, it may be broader but it's a helluva lot thinner.

Nice try, realism101! But deniers like youself, don't let REAL facts and data get in the way of your "unscientific drivel".

Also, the Jet Stream kept cold air farther north this winter in some areas (like Alaska), so there could be a temporary increase in thin sea ice, but let's wait until the minimum annual ice extent (usually in early September). That has been trending down for many years, and the trend will likely continue, if not this year then next year or the year after.