Think of all that future beachfront property. ☺

anyone that thinks we can pollute the way we do and it have no effect needs help

lol yeah, dont tell a conservative we should conserve the environment..they arent for it.

No worries. Once the planet kills us off things can get back to business as usual. I'm pretty sure it doesn't selectively take out liberals so there should be no issues.

In the end, the planet will win no matter what stupid thing the current parasite of the millennium cooks up for it. Conservatives don't care anyhow. The rapture is a'comin'. Ask any of them.

Warming? What warming? Where, how, why? Don't listen to the scientists, what do they know?

This article is BEYOND PATHETIC. I hear all this crap about "liberal media bias"...are you F*^&%ing kidding me. The article looks as though someone wrote it, talking about how this is EXACTLY what every peer review scientist has predicted and EDITED THE LIVING SH&T out of it to remove almost every referrence to cliamte change which is the the undisputed reason for this problem. I hate people...I hate the media and I hate the fools who have caused this because they are too stupid to accept the problem and deal with it.

Limbaugh actually said the greenhouse effect simply means better gardens for all.

"I'm surprised that you just didn't blame Bush."

Bush agreed that Global Warming was real. He was a coward to cross the party and the polluters who paid for his presidency. Facts are hard on a conservative sometimes.

You guys are headed down a very slippery slope. .. at least until the ice is all gone then it will be much rougher ride. But don't buy all this hoopla it is really bob barker up there in his speedboat painting the ice black to fool the satellite imagery, if not it has to be cosmic algae on them dar satellite picture machines giving a false positive!

I don't know why people even debate this I remember first frosts early Septembers now days it doesn't happen until mid-October. I know this is a regional analogy but I remember bad winters and the long spring thaws. I also remember old people back then saying winters weren't like they used to be. People used to have to shovel their roofs. Now days you hope the East coast Mountains open for Skiing before the end of the season. Someone should make a theory about human greed and how long it will take to eradicate our species.

Guess what Jim? The polar ice was even less in the early 1800s than it is now! How about that?! Maybe you should do some reading and research. Funny how these stories never mention the glaciers that are actually GROWING but then that wouldn't be expedient to their political motives, now, would it?

Prove it.

All we need is just one satellite photo and the argument is yours.

You don't need to ask a conservative for proof. They have "faith" that they're right, and that's all they will ever need. Don't waste their time with facts, logic or reason!

Without even looking down this chain I know there are the deniers and advocates for nasty ass fossil fuel. Everything has a limit with the exception of stupidity. This planet is maxed out by logging, fossil fuel burning, strip mining, oil spilling industrialists exercising what they call "capitalism.' Whatever it is--it's not working for the environment.

They want less regulation and to loosen the laws on corporate polluters.

The polar ice was even less in the early 1800s than it is now................ How would anyone know back then what we know now. Don't talk intelligent unless you have a clue?

DRILL DRILL DRILL Global Is A Myth <--- what the GOP wants you to believe... while Americans write checks to subsidize BIG OIL's record BILLION $$ Profits

Sounds like it could be a good place for a new summer home. Keep up the good work folks.

So how did ancient mariners navigate the same waters in wooden boats as early as the 1700's?

Everything is about evolution, except when it's about evolution.

Steve-446003: So, again, how do you "know" that the 1700s had less ice than today? A slight opening of the Northern Passage doesn't count as empirical evidence.

Where's you're satellite photo?

Burning Brightly: Actually, try more like 800,000 years of exacting records, with everything from tree rings to ice cores to sediment in Antarctica. Then they're data from fossils that is harder to exactly date but goes back millions of years.

Climate change science is very strong.

OH, thats right Black and Gold they did have satellites back in the 1800's... "NOT" Idiot!!! How did those people back then measure the ice so accurately with those high tech tools they had back then right??

BlackandGold-1513340

Guess what Jim? The polar ice was even less in the early 1800s than it is now! How about that?! Maybe you should do some reading and research. Funny how these stories never mention the glaciers that are actually GROWING but then that wouldn't be expedient to their political motives, now, would it?

How would you know that? Very little was known of the Polar ice cap in the 1800's. They didn't have precise satellite measurements that we do now. Hell, Admiral Peary's expedition didn't even make it to the North Pole until about 1909 and even that is contested. The Arctic regions were sparsely populated in the 1800's which leads to my conclusion:

You are full of it. Cite your facts, but WAGs (wild-ass guesses) that your imaginary friend tells you are not admissible in this court of public opinion.

Valhalla Phil

Bush was far more green than Obama, that's for sure. Much more green than Gore for that matter. All the green things coming to fruition now were started on Bush's watch.

All the green things? Like the money bulging out the CEO's pockets? Like all the greenbacks Bush got his pals in Haliburton. Are those the green things you're talking about?

cullerco

Think of all that future beachfront property.

.........Yep, in Arizona, the illegals will be coming in by raft.

let me know if your still a liberal that wants environmental controls, so all the good paying jobs go to China and India.

You really think the main driving force behind off shoring our jobs is the environmental regulations? Not that non flammable water is a bad thing.

Try incentives and labor that is 5% of what it is here.

Do your part and agree to make cheap crap for 40 cents an hour. What says you?

I think anyone who contests whether or not burning fuels has an impact on the atmosphere should crank up the generator and put it next to their bed... then we can talk in the morning.

DB Akron

Odds are there will be a rebound this winter.

.............Convenient argument, based on what facts?.

Look up some historical maps...while they did do a decent job of the land masses in the 1800's; things were still very far from accurate. All they could do from the pole was sail around it in the cold and make guesses.

So it is safe to say that any glacier data from before 1950 or so is going to be pretty much guess work with a massive margin of error. Even in 1950 it wasn't much better since it was just fly overs in planes...so really you could go all the way till 1980 or so before you can say the data would be trust worthy.

As far as human caused global warming...humans may have started it...I repeat, MAY have started it, but nature is going to finish it. The methane plumes in the south pole likely do more in a day than humans do in a year. Though the cause is not important, we cannot reverse it. It took nature millions of years to put all that carbon under ground. There is nothing we can do with current or foreseeable technology. All we can do is learn to live with warmer temps.

SactoJD

I think anyone who contests whether or not burning fuels has an impact on the atmosphere should crank up the generator and put it next to their bed... then we can talk in the morning.

.............Best idea I've read in a long time, I can think of a lot of people I would like to see try it..

Glaciers retreating or growing? Good question. Let's look at Mount Kilimanjaro in Africa as our test subject. It's a well known mountain going back into the 1800's, surrounded by a lot of flat land so it's easily observable and approachable. It stands close to 20,000 feet tall, so at that height it should have a year round coating of ice.

In the late 1880s the summit of Kibo was completely covered by an ice cap with outlet glaciers cascading down the western and southern slopes, and, except for the inner cone, the entire caldera was buried. Glacier ice flowed also through the Western Breach.^[28]

An examination of ice cores taken from the North Ice Field Glacier indicates that the "snows of Kilimanjaro" (aka glaciers) have a basal age of 11,700 years.^[32][33] A continuous ice cap covering approximately 400 square kilometers covered the mountain during the period of maximum glaciation, extending across the summits of Kibo and Mawenzi.^[28] The glacial ice survived drought conditions during a three century period beginning ~2200 BC.^[34]

The period from 1912 to present has witnessed the disappearance of more than 80% of the ice cover on Kilimanjaro. From 1912 to 1953 there was ~1% annual loss, while 1989–2007 saw ~2.5% annual loss. Of the ice cover still present in 2000, 26% had disappeared by 2007. While the current shrinking and thinning of Kilimanjaro's ice fields appears to be unique within its almost twelve millennium history, it is contemporaneous with widespread glacier retreat in mid-to-low latitudes across the globe. At the current rate, Kilimanjaro is expected to become ice-free some time between 2022 and 2033

Okay... and the survey is back... BlackandGold is a complete disingenuous r-tard...

It's happening. Get use to it. Try to remember that an Economy is a human made concept that should be able to adapt, change, and roll with the punches; but once you dick up the environment, all you can do at that point is live (or die) with your mistakes. It's probably not fixable.

Okay. I don't understand how this is even an argument anymore. So many people want to turn a blind eye so no one has to admit that there's a problem. I admit that I was one of those people less than a year ago, until I took the time to study everything for myself with a clear, unbiased mind. You want some facts? Fact is, thirteen of the fourteen warmest years on record were the years between 1995 and 2008. For the last 600,000 years, carbon dioxide in the air NEVER exceeded 300 ppm (though it always fluctuated between 180 to 300 ppm), but man has pushed it to almost 400 ppm since the industrial revolution. How is this fact known? Through the research of air bubbles trapped in ancient ice cores. The difference in average air temperatures during the ice ages with current air temperatures? Only about 9 degrees fahrenheit. Not a whole lot, is it. Sea levels are, in fact, rising, and are expected to rise up to 20-some inches by the end of the century if we continue on our current path. Polar bears are much thinner than they used to be just decades ago due to less ice for territory and fish for food. Some species of penguins in the Antarctic are fading fast for the same reason, receding ice caps. Plant and animal species are already moving poleward and northward for the cooler climates they need to survive. It's not all "science;" if you just take the time to look, birds are migrating earlier in the spring and the peak times for melting are happening earlier too. Everything is shifting! Freezing seasons are shorter and average global temperatures are warmer by 1.4 degrees (F) just within the last century. If the Quelccaya ice cap in Pero continus to melt at its current rate, it will be gone by the beginning of the next century and the people who rely on it for water and electricity will be screwed! Yes, some places experience even more extreme cold weather but that is to be expected too. With the adjustments the Earth is trying to make, normal weather just becomes more severe in some areas that it isn't changed altogether - in other words, just because blizzards may become more frequent in one or two spots doesn't negate what is happening across the rest of the globe. Everything hangs in the balance and we, obviously, throw that balance way off. What does it hurt to acknowledge the damage our pollution really does? Anyone who says it doesn't make a difference is clearly in denial. LOOK IT ALL UP.

I would rather have a "Liberal Nut-Job" telling me to reduce on my gas consumption, than a "Conservative Nut-Job" telling my female friend to be unwillingly penetrated.

So how much of the polar ice is gone now from "decades" ago? 30%? Based on the photo, it looks like about a third of it or so is gone. But I was at the beach in LA the other night for the first time in decades, and it was the weirdest thing - the shoreline was pretty much exactly where it was last time. So where does all that water go if 30% of it has melted, because it sure didn't seem to make the oceans rise any appreciable amount.

Aviator, this is the thing about SEA ice. It sits on the ocean. If you have a glass with water in it, and put in ice until it is at the top, and the ice melts, does the glass overflow? No, because the ice displaces the same volume of water.This, my friend, is called science.

Duh - Aviator Dave.

Ice floating in water (e.g. the Arctic) does not raise the water level when it melts (water expands when it freezes, not thaws).

Ice melting off land (e.g. Greenland and Antarctica) will put that nice little LA beach over your roof.

Good luck with that.

By the time we convince every idiot on the planet that global warming is real, it's far too late to fix it.

Take a look at Romney's "energy plan" - chuck all alternative fuel research and DRILL, BABY, DRILL.

I rest my case.

WHAT PART OF HOTTEST MONTH EVER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

According to NOAA July 2012 was the hottest month in the contiguous USA since recording began more than a century ago. The average temp was 77.6 degrees a full 3.3 degrees warmer than the 20^th century norm. This spring was the warmest on record by 5.2 degrees

WHAT PART OF HOTTEST YEAR EVER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

The warmest 12 month period ever recorded in the US the 14^th consecutive year with above average temperatures

WHAT PART OF HOTTEST TEN YEARS EVER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

The 10 hottest tears on record nine in the occurring since 2000

WHAT PART OF MELTING ICE CAPS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

An enormous mass of ice, four times the size of Manhattan broke off from northern Greenland and slipped into the sea the biggest in 50 years. On July 8, 2012 40% of Greenland’s ice sheet’s surface had thawed –a typical summer. But four days later in an extreme melt event almost all the ice sheet had thawed an event that hasn’t occurred in at least 150 years. The Arctic ice cap reaching a record low volume has lost as much as 40% of its area in summer in just 30 years.

WHAT PART OF EXTREME WEATHER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

The deadly European heat wave of 2003, which led to thousands of deaths The fiery Russian and Middle East heat wave of 2010, which led to thousands of deaths The catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma in 2011resulting the largest fires in AZ. History The fire season is now increased by 78 days.

Mega floods displacing millions around the world The number of weather disasters has tripled in the last 20
years Record snowfall in 2010 followed by record rainfall and floods and then the worst drought in 50 years in 2012.

WHAT PART OF ESCALATING FOOD PRICES DUE TO EXTREME WEATHER DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Floods, fires, drought taking food crops off the global market a 5.2 billion lose in TX in 2011 Drought this year on the Midwest the corn crop all but ruined while the USDA predicts a 3 to 5 percent increase on everything from cereal to steak, some economists believe price hikes will come closer to 10 percent.

WHAT PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Hotter oceans are making corals pale and sick 95% of the world’s reefs are likely to be severely damaged

WHAT PART OF A MILITARY INTEL REPORT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Drought, floods and a lack of fresh water may cause significant global instability and conflict in the coming decades, as developing countries scramble to meet demand from exploding populations while dealing with the effects of climate change, U.S. intelligence agencies said in a report released March 2012. An Assessment reflecting the joint judgment of federal intelligence agencies says the risk of water issues causing wars in the next 10 years is minimal even as they create tensions within and between states and threaten to disrupt national and global food markets. But beyond 2022, it says the use of water as a weapon of war or a tool of terrorism will become more likely, particularly in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. (Nuclear armed Pakistan has already been destabilized by severe flooding caused by climate change)

WHAT PART OF SCIENCE DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

Global warming has been endorsed by EVERY National Academy of Science of every major country on the planet Every Major Scientific Society related to the study of global warming 98% of Climate scientists throughout the world 3,000 of the best scientific experts in the world as “unequivocal” All the complex computer climate models show climate change

WHAT PART OF MATH DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

90million tons of heat trapping emissions dumped into the Earth’s atmosphere every 24 hours with 20% of the pollution still here 20,000 years from now Global warming gases in the world’s atmosphere are rising
with concentrations up 29% since the start of the Industrial era. Carbon Dioxide gases up 39% No longer can the deniers point to a single weather event as having numerous causes by simple asking the question how likely is this to have occurred with the absence of global warming the new statistical research proves
that statistically what’s happening is not random or normal but pure climate change

WHAT PART OF A CONSERVATIVE COVER UP DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?

The polluter and Ideologues finance pseudoscientists whose job is to manufacture doubt about is real and what is false. Buying elected officials wholesale with bribes that the politicians have made legal and can now be made in secret Spending hundreds of millions of dollars on misleading advertisements Hiring 4 anti-climate lobbyists for every member of the US Senate and House of Representatives The tobacco industry did the same thing and the deception went on for decades

The script was leaked in 1991 in an internal document the largest global polluters spelled out their strategy: “reposition global warming as theory rather than fact” so undermine the public’s respect for science and reason and leaked documents from the Heartland Institute The heart of the climate denial machine relies on huge corporate and foundation funding from U.S. businesses, including, Koch Industries, Altria (parent company of Philip Morris) RJR Tobacco and more,"

Soon there will be some people who will wonder why they missed the rapture.

Check out the new drilling process called "fracking" or "hydrofracking." It started under Bush and continued under Obama (Obama is all for it by the way). The drilling process itself releases deadly chemicals into our ground water and pollutants into the air, which add to global warming. They will tell you that burning natural gas is cleaner than other fossil fuels, but this is misleading because the worst happens in the drilling process. The air quality goes down in areas where there are drills, and there are thousands of them already. Whole areas of the country are rendered unlivable. If global warming is accelerating, it is no surprise. You do not have to take my word for it, check it out for yourself (see the movie "Gasland.") The sad thing is, once they poison an area, it is poisoned forever. So far, New York State has not allowed it, but it could be let in at any time. It has to be stopped, and unfortunately, Obama is not stopping it (nor will Romney).

If we don't want the Apocalypse in our lifetime, it is up to us to stop this.

Good thing you guys made fun of al gore and voted for bush lol enjoy the fruits of your actions.

Henry Hudson was right. There is a shorter path to China.

Still, a ballistic missile is faster.

Almost too late to turn back now. Hope the ole oil tycoons are effin' happy!!

aviatordave ... guilty of 2 counts of conservative stupidity. 1) arctic ice cap floats, therefore melting dosen't effect sea level; 2) you wouldn't notice the 7" that the sea level has risen except during high tides with storm surge. that's when it becomes noticeable as it floods areas that have never been flooded before

WitchKing: When temperature averages are made, they basically take the temperatures from airports, in remote regions from weather stations. Since the USA began, MOST of the population lived in the Northeast, hence MOST of the temperature calcs were based on the Northeast. (Just ask yourself how many 'official US Government weather stations were in Death Valley or Arizona or even Georgia...). In today's world, the weather stations are everywhere, including the deserts (and some in the arctic to offset it). So before anybody agrees with your view, or argues it, perhaps someone should very simply determine HOW EXACTLY the temperature averages were made today, 50 years ago, 100 years ago, etc.. My guess? They have a weather station that contributes to the 'average' in every locality that has a certain population. If that is true then there would be more reporting stations in the hotter parts of the country then 100 years ago, so of course the average would be higher. Find me that info, and I may believe you, if it matches your view. And the same argument would apply to the rest of the world, and even the past. If you dig in Greenland for your ice cores to determine temps you are not showing the 'world was colder' years ago, but just that Greenland was colder. It is possible in some year that Greenland was an icehouse that the seals in the arctic were sunbathing.

As a final note, there is a HUGE margin of error in some of the methods that temps are determined as it applies to a specific year. You can see trends from ice cores and sea floor sediment, but you can not pinpoint any exact year. It is possible that Greenland melts every 200 years liek clockwork and it would barely show up in ice cores if it was only 1 year out of that 200.

What an approprite name witchking, since your questions point to magic instead of science. Global warming is real, however, man being the cause is highly unlikely. The Earth has been much warmer than now many times in its exsistance, along with it being much colder. In the 1800's, ( a century BEFORE we started keeping track of temperatures in North America), we started coming out of a minor ice age climate scientists call the Maunder minimum. We are still coming out of that period. Yes, the earth is warming, but not due to man caused greenhouse gases. I have shown in other parts of these comments data from the NOAA website that states 95% of greenhouse gases are composed of water vapor(H2O). 4% are composed of CO2, and the remaining 1% of various other gases. Man's greatest contribution to greenhouses gases extant in the atmosphere is 4% of the CO2. That equals .16 parts per 100, hardly enough to cause climate change. So to answer your questions...

Hottest month, year, etc... insufficent data points to effectivly correlate data over the entire history of the earth. In essence, our experiances here are at best, a statisical non entity taken in context of the geologic history of the earth. To put it bluntly, we have no idea of the long term climate of the earth, and the data we have is useless parsed against the whole.

Extreme weather. Compared to what? Our knowledge? Again, useless and inadaequate against the history of our world, of which we have seen so small a part. However, you might want to check out a few historical occasions, such as the year without a summer, and going further back, the cooling conditions that according to out matriarchal DNA, indicate a very few human female progenators due to "extreme"weather.

Food prices? Irrelevant to the man caused global warming issue. Prices have gone up due to the weather, but the question is the validity of the dubious statement that the weather extremes are caused by man.

Intel reports? You honestly think this is the first time there is a military issue due to lack of rain? Might want to broaden your horizons. Check out the fall of the Sudanese and Libyan empires in Africa, along with the faliure of the Anazasi and Pre-Mayan civilizations in the Americas.

Enviromental damage? Please, the oceans have been both much warmer and much cooler that at the present time with no help or hindrance from man. Modern species evolved as a result of global warming and cooling, with the strongest surving. It will happen once again as it has so many times in the past.

Science? Let's talk real science, not the psuedo-intellectual bs that the liberals are trying to cram down our throats. Yes, there is global warming. Man is not causing it. Do real sciense and get sets of real data points to base it on, not the paltry information we have at our disposal from our tiny bit of history. Where? Ice cores for one. These show numerous instances of warmer temperature and greater concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere. Where else? Geologic information. Vast beds of limestone were laid down all over the world in shallow seas created by warmer temps than now and lack of global ice. Higher concentrations of CO2 led to the formation of these limestone beds which are global in scope and many layered, indicating more than one occurance of these situations, al of these times being previous to man's small scale of history.

Math? Lets talk math. Show me how .16 parts per 100 is causing these "dramatic" temperature increases. Do the math, and heh, you lose.

Conservative coverup? How about the liberal scam to make money? Al Gore has made millions off of his movie and "cause", and yet his family and properties have a bigger carbon footprint than some African nations. You want to learn something, follow the money. Check into the folks that are making money off of these "green" movement, and check into the actual effectiveness of their efforts, you will be sorely disillusioned. It is not a secret how the "Green" company Obama sponsered and gave millions to failed in the marketplace and reality.

Wake up witchking, and lay off the magic, it just doesn't fly in reality.

Get the fuk over it people. If it's going to melt, it's going to melt. Not much that you nor I can do to tell and force the planet and mother nature on what it plans to do now, and in the future.

People seem to have a lot of difficulty wrapping their brain around the fact that the planet is in control of us, and people want full control over the planet.

Sit back, enjoy the ride. What's the point of worrying about something that is beyond our control.

The only green repubs care about is the green color of money!

Since they are claiming all of this where was the ice in January, I'll tell you further south than it has been in forty years but they do not write about that. Bunch of liars it is all about the money, nothing more. Looking at a visualisation for a reference is ridiculous.

Arieus - kinda apathetic don't you think? People can affect it both ways just like we did with Lead, that pesticide that killed off mass populations of birds, to some extent acid rain. Changing what we do does make a difference its not a switch, its not over nite but it does make a difference. I don't get the "there is nothing we can do" motivational speeches. Even slowing down our negative impact would help.

@in 1800 sheets were smaller comment on this thread. If that was true core samples near the current edges would only go back 200 years.. has that ever happened? That's a sincere question.

Remember that the primary so called green house gas is H2O, not CO2. There is no proof either way that CO2 from human use of fossil fuel is causing the climate to change. But fossil fuel is finite and we are using it up very quickly and it continues to become more expensive to obtain. There is good reason to be developing alternatives other than possible climate change.

Kudos to Roscoe for an excellent post (in response to a delusional post it should be noted).

When ideology drives science, science suffers.

I'm squarely with Roscoe: humans are not causing global warming; whether we are exacerbating it is arguable. We constantly see examples of Man v. Nature. Face it, Mother Nature is a b_tch. And for all our supposedly technological superiority we can't prevent the devastation of earthquakes, volanoes or tsunamis.

Getting into ideologically-driven diatribes isn't going to further real solutions either. Albeit, I do take great delight in marveling at how supposedly educated people are so prone to logical fallacies (which makes threads like this a constant source of amusement).

Read Roscoe's post. Then re-read it. Realize the magnitude of the problem. Then get over the left-right, liberal-conservative finger-pointing and political diatribe spewing. Because like it or not, homo sapiens sapiens' toe-hold on this planet is a lot more tenuous than any of us are willing to admit.

As Benjamin Franklin eloquently put it (albeit in a more political sense), "If we do not hang together, we will assuredly hang separately."

Global warming is natural, but humans aren't helping Earth one bit, it's all about drill baby drill. Romney's plan is stupid...use up all the fossil fuels before going green. Why not do what Obama has been trying to do and use everything: Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Oil, and Coal. It is the smarter way of doing things. That way, you have a great supply of energy, reducing demand....hence lower energy prices all around.

But no, congress is going to continue to follow the dirty lobbyist money all the way to human extinction. It is going to get very hot when the ice is gone, it deflects a great deal of heat back out into space.

John Haddok,

Another graduate of the Rove School of Distortion and "Comebacks".

John, you cannot undo in four years what it took decades to create. Keep that in mind if Mitt wins and nothing changes. Warming issues, just like our economy, will take at least half a century to resolve if not more, our economy wont take that long but it wont be in the next five years either.

There is plenty of evidence to back up the fact that the earth is getting warmer but we must also keep in mind that certain businesses stand to benefit from a green agenda. Like, um, GE who coincidentally owns NBC.

Guess what Jim? The polar ice was even less in the early 1800s than it is now! How about that?! Maybe you should do some reading and research. Funny how these stories never mention the glaciers that are actually GROWING but then that wouldn't be expedient to their political motives, now, would it?

Evidence, BlankandGold? Or do you just get to claim things as facts and expect people to accept them?

The early 1800s were during a period know as the Dalton Minimum, during which lessened solar activity sent the planet into a prolonged period of cooler temperatures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum

So I doubt your claim.

Scambos said the Arctic system is too variable to guarantee that each future year would show a decline, but over time he expects the decline to continue. "I think we can expect further declines to new records," he said, "and eventually, an ice-free North Pole."

This is great news! Soon we can start tapping the pole for oil!

The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named after the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830.^[1] Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0°C decline over 20 years.^[2]

So you are saying that the sun does have something to do with it! Wow!

Well sh$t!....

@ Rosco

Global warming is real

Be careful playing in to the mantra. I've been going to Cape Cod for years, and I still have to walk the same distance to the beach. If the Earth was warming, ice would be melting and islands would be shrinking all over the planet. By comparing old sea charts (Florida Keys, Midway Islands, etc), over a span of many decades or centuries, we get get an idea of how much the sea has "risen" by its effects on land masses.

Due to this record low ice pack on the north pole, the ocean had to have a greater volume of water! Did O'bama lower the seas? This would be a kept promise to campaign on! Screw the negative attacks and bring up this truly remarkable feat that you have performed Mr. O'bama!

Human existence only cares as much as their life expectancy; If they lived to be a thousand years old they may be smart enough to realize the planet is not in their control..

We would all be living like third world countries if we didn't use resources to benefit us. I myself know we should live life to the fullest cause we're all destine to fail.

@Rickeroo

Over the past 20 years the annual sea rise has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year. That's 2.6 inches over that 20 years. I'm not sure that your finely tuned observational skills would notice it. The real concern is that the rate has been accelerating - that last 20 year rate was about twice the average rate for the previous 80.

Also, sea elevation changes for an area that can get as much as 300 feet above water like Cape Cod is less worrisome than say for the Maldives whose highest point is less than 8 feet above sea level.

If you weren't aware, you and your keen observational skills are part of the problem.

We are not the only country on the planet. To say that the U.S.A. is the sole source of global warming, (true or not), is American ego. Also, to pin it, (true or not) on one politician in the last 60 years is just retarded.

Some of you have your underware up far up your a$$ when you yawn everyone can see what color they are.

Evidently the "scientists" haven't been to Alaska the last couple years. They have had the biggest ice pack in many years the last couple winters. There was record snow. Cordova was buried this year with over 18 feet in a month. Fisherman were struggling on the Copper River due to the amount of ice on opening day of Salmon season. Many Crab boats couldn't even get to there normal fishing grounds because it was under the ice this year.

@Rosco-1033353

Once again, I get to see the fallacy of someone breaking down the atmospheric content. While your statistic of the CO2 from anthropogenic sources may be correct, you assume that it's the ONLY contribution made by man. Ever hear of CFCs, HFCs, or HCFCs? While not 'natural' greenhouse gases, these chemicals get dispersed in the atmosphere, which have much higher global warming potentials than CO2 (can get as high as the thousands) and last in the atmosphere for many more years (up to hundreds of years). Considering how powerful and long-lasting these are, that 1% of various other gases far exceeds the other 99% of gases in terms of pure global warming potential. I mean honestly, people are so ignorant that they only focus on CO2 when many more harmful chemicals are being emitted by mankind.

As for the rest of your argument, James E. Hansen (if you don't know who that is, I advise you look him up) has published countless documents and research papers on the global warming issue dating since the 70s. Some of the facts that you so easily stated are refuted by his research (and trust me, it's that thorough).

Next time you want to say 'earth is warming, but not due to man made greenhouse gases', I suggest you take off those blinders and see the whole picture.

Evidently the "scientists" haven't been to Alaska the last couple years. They have had the biggest ice pack in many years the last couple winters

All you had to do was watch Deadliest Catch! The ice was the worst some of these guys had ever seen! But, it doesnt mesh with agenda science unfortunately. No articles on NBC about it ironically.

Considering how powerful and long-lasting these are, that 1% of various other gases far exceeds the other 99% of gases in terms of pure global warming potential. I mean honestly, people are so ignorant that they only focus on CO2 when many more harmful chemicals are being emitted by mankind.

Perhaps you should use your lack of ignorance to conclude that something natural...a much greater force than could ever be created by man...has indeed drastically changed climate upon the earth. It is you, I declair, that narrows his focus upon one factor. That of man!

So let me ask all the folks on here who believe this is normal; what natural phenomenon besides man is causing the Arctic Ice to recede at a greater pace each year?

I have a friend at Copper River seafood in Cordova and she sent me pictures of the tunnel she had to dig to get to her front door. The Copper River was so frozen in May that the gillnetters were struggling to fish. Big chunks of ice in your net really affects your nets ability to catch fish. For all the doubters, use your favorite search engine and check out the snowfall amounts in AK this year. As in all things, it's cyclical. Carbon Credits and all that BS is just a way for people to get rich pushing this green agenda. The sun isn't a set temp, it fluctuates and will affect our temps. It's not too hard to grasp.

I really think that some of you have any clue about climate change other than you just don't want to believe in it because it would be inconvenient.

1) Winter is a different season than Summer <- Difficult to follow I know.

2) Evaluating the entire world based on one geographic area is unlikely to be accurate.

3) Climate change models predict greater extremes in weather (like a heavy winter storm season in the arctic)

4) References to the Deadliest Catch are about FLOATING sea ice - floating ice moves around as it is moved by wind, currents, etc. Just because they show it to have been driven further south than normal on TV doesn't mean that there is ice covering everything north of what you are seeing....

Perhaps you should use your lack of ignorance to conclude that something natural...a much greater force than could ever be created by man...has indeed drastically changed climate upon the earth. It is you, I declair, that narrows his focus upon one factor. That of man!

What natural force has changed? It isn't solar luminosity. You can't posit a counter argument based on nothing; so, come up with something natural that could account for the data—maybe you'd be taken more seriously then.

I have a friend at Copper River seafood in Cordova and she sent me pictures of the tunnel she had to dig to get to her front door. The Copper River was so frozen in May that the gillnetters were struggling to fish. Big chunks of ice in your net really affects your nets ability to catch fish. For all the doubters, use your favorite search engine and check out the snowfall amounts in AK this year. As in all things, it's cyclical. Carbon Credits and all that BS is just a way for people to get rich pushing this green agenda. The sun isn't a set temp, it fluctuates and will affect our temps. It's not too hard to grasp.

Along the lines of "not too hard to grasp" - try reading this particular link:

http://phys.org/news/2012-06-arctic-ice-stage-cold-weather.html

For those of you disinclined to follow and read - basic summary - hotter artic summer -> lower arctic pressure gradient -> weakened polar vortex -> cold air more easily escapes artic -> drives colder winter variability in the north latitudes outside of the artic... You know... like Cordova Alaska...

William Bentley

What natural force has changed? It isn't solar luminosity. You can't posit a counter argument based on nothing; so, come up with something natural that could account for the data—maybe you'd be taken more seriously then.

We dont know all the natural forces that have come into play in climate change of the past, therefore how can we be so certain of what is causing our current warming trend? This is my counter argument. To declair a single cause in such a complex system is irresponsible at best. One thing we do know, climate has changed drastically in the past due to other reasons than mans contribution to the atmosphere. Perhaps we should delve into the possibilities that we are not considering.

Hey Rosco and Stunned:

Are you guys scientists?

We dont know all the natural forces that have come into play in climate change of the past, therefore how can we be so certain of what is causing our current warming trend? This is my counter argument. To declair a single cause in such a complex system is irresponsible at best. One thing we do know, climate has changed drastically in the past due to other reasons than mans contribution to the atmosphere. Perhaps we should delve into the possibilities that we are not considering.

It starts with you Kornfed. All the climate researchers are basing their models around man-made climate change. They put forth models of climate that try to account--then predict--what will happen in the future. If you believe a natural force is responsible then I urge you to research it. I'm not deaf, blind, and dumb, but I have to take the researchers word because I don't have time myself to invest in pouring over the data and researching models about climate change. Simply shrugging it off as natural and too complicated won't work, anything that differs and causes statistical deviations can be measured and modeled; so any natural forces responsible can be tracked and measured. If you came up with a viable alternative, that predicted climate change better without mans influence, I'd listen to you.

Hey Rosco and Stunned:

Are you guys scientists?

Ha.

They put forth models of climate that try to account--then predict--what will happen in the future. If you believe a natural force is responsible then I urge you to research it.

The same ones that predicted more numerous, bigger, and stronger hurricanes? I dare say that predictions of future weather is precarious at best. After record flooding last year, you would think that the predicted yields of corn would be greater than ever for the following year...which in fact was predicted. Look what happened, a record drought. I prefer in the belief that nature is far more complicated to be conquered by mans models of prediction. Logic is a powerful tool. As the science channel's moto states...question everything!

Where are talking about apples and oranges here. These are not the climate models I'm referring to. Logic is indeed a powerful tool, and yet you've been rather lethargically inclined to use it. You question scientists, but offer no alternative other than vastly complicated natural systems. I was willing to listen to your data, but you have none.

Kornfed, you are correct that year-to-year weather is almost impossible to predict, so most climatologists don't even try. But weather is not climate. What they are predicting is that greenhouse gasses will increase the greenhouse effect. Therefore, when averaged over the long-term, the global climate will be warmer than it otherwise would have been.

Kornfed: "To declair a single cause in such a complex system is irresponsible at best."

No climate scientist has ever done that. They do know most of the natural factors that affect long-term climate, and they study them all. It just so happens that the one that is changing the most at the moment is carbon dioxide.

Where are talking about apples and oranges here. These are not the climate models I'm referring to. Logic is indeed a powerful tool, and yet you've been rather lethargically inclined to use it.

Oh but we are not. I am merely suggesting, as my original point referred, that it is irrational to narrow ones search for the cause of climate change to a single set of minute atmospheric factors. As to my lethargy, I am not tired at all today!

You question scientists, but offer no alternative other than vastly complicated natural systems. I was willing to listen to your data, but you have none

I question agenda driven conclusions. I respect science. I offer alternatives by the mere fact that climate has changed drastically without mans contribution. Neither I, nor the most brilliant of our scientists know of all these factors. They may theorize, which is all any of us can do at this point. Humans tend to narrow their focus upon something they can explain. Measurement of increased CO2 offers a simplistic explanation of a very complex system. I suggest that we hold off on our arrogance of consensus of mans contribution to our climate.

The benefit of the GW is the North-West passage open for longer during the year. Not that long ago a singlehanded sailor went around the Americas to benefit charity in a small sailboat (27 foot Albin Vega). Check out his awesome adventure site: http://www.solotheamericas.org/

@ BalckandGold #1.6,

• You said; Guess what Jim? The polar ice was even less in the early 1800s than it is now! How about that?! Maybe you should do some reading and research.
• --
• I took your advice and checked it out on-line & guess what? You're correct. The satellite images from the early 1800's shows it "actually was" less ice then now. Go figure.
• Pfft! LMAO man.

"I think we can expect further declines to new records," he said, "and eventually, an ice-free North Pole."

Cool - then we can take a cruise ship to the North Pole.

Interestingly, every 'warming' period in the past has resulted in dramatic progress in the arts, sciences and health of people. For an interesting 'read', consider the following information on the 'Medieval Warm Period' of about 1000 years ago - from Stanford.edu.

http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

@ Kornfed

Yes, we all know the Earth has warmed in the past, but we also know from the same source material that gave us that data that the warming took thousands of years and was gradual. What we are seeing now is essentially a snap change in only a few hundred years, the blink of an eye in geological terms. There is no denying that. Plus if this is all just politics then why is it that all over the world scientist from different nations, ethnicities, religions and political bias we have somewhere around 99% agreement that the Earth is getting warmer and that humans are a contributing factor to the warming - the only dissention is how much of an impact humans are having and weather or not it can be reversed with our current technology.

Things we know for sure are: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, CO2 is 30% higher in PPM concentration than it has been found in any ice core sample from previous warming periods. Man made chemicals like aresol and the before mentioned CFC's that are not naturally created have an exponentially greater effect than methane or CO2 on warming - granted their concentration is minimal but since you are so fond of taking in all the factors lets not be so quick to dismiss these as they have never been a part of the previous warming periods. A volcano eruption lets out more pollutants than 100 million cars do in a year - we probably have close to a billion vehicles in the world, so we are effectively adding the equivalent of 10 additional volcanic eruptions to our atmosphere every year just from driving alone - you can't possibly say that this has no effect on the atmosphere. Land pollutants destroy plant life on land - this effects us because plant life is the only natural source of carbon capture that we know of.

However, the real human factor contributing to global warming is a combination of overpopulation, urban sprawl, carbon emmission, deforestation and last but not least good ol' fashioned denial, fear of change and want for the status quo.

Now for all you people with your "insight" of "well if all the ice is melting in the poles then why hasn't the ocean risen." News flash - that ice was already in the water! so guess what it doesn't seem like much of a difference - in fact if you want to get right down to it because water expands when it freezes (thats why your soda can explodes when you leave it in the freezer for too long) any ice that is above the surface (< 10%) could explain why you don't seem to see any net gain on the rising ocean yet. The real drastic rising water will come when land ice (glaciers) melts and eventually flows into the ocean, this will probably happen gradually enough for you not to notice in your lifetime - but your grandchildren will one day be visiting the ruins of New York on a boat tour down 5th avenue.

Kornfed: "I question agenda driven conclusions."

Then you should question the global warming deniers.

No climate scientist is claiming that CO2 is the only factor that affects climate. Quite the contrary. But we focus on CO2 because that is what seems to be the largest factor at the moment, and that is what we are changing and can therefore do something about.

Rosco (#1.48): Okay first of all, you are bringing up the NOAA website, which does actually support the evidence of human-caused global warming, so I would be careful in my argument if I were you. Second, if you didn't know, it's not just the amount of the gases that is important, it's the power of the gases to absorb heat. So, RE-DO "the math" to incorporate other relevant information and you will come up with a different answer. For example, methane and nitrous oxide are two of the other gases that we release into the atmosphere. One molecule of methane is 25 times more powerful than one molecule of CO2, and one molecule of nitrous oxide is 300 times more powerful. We're lucky we only release trace amounts of these gases or we would have an exponentially larger problem on our hands. So again, you, my friend, need to look at more than just the amount of gases we release into the air before you dismiss the significance, and I don't think you've even considered that. Third, you stated ice cores will show much warmer temperatures and greater concentrations of CO2. I don't know where you got that from because they don't, it's more like the opposite. They will show that CO2 levels never exceeded 300 parts per million over a period of at least the last 650,000 years and that was, of course, its HIGHEST level. Norms were as low as 180 ppm. Until we had something to do with it; in such a short amount of time we have caused levels to go up to almost 400 ppm from the 280 ppm we were sitting at before the Industrial Revolution (which is projected to be at 560 ppm by the beginning of the next century if we continue at our current rate of emissions. Explain that one away). Fourth, when it comes to water vapor, yes it is 5 times more powerful as a heat absorber than all other gases combined, but the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere has increased, also due to global warming, as more water evaporates from the warmer temperatures...

Anyway, the temperature changes aren't really "dramatic." The EFFECTS of the temperature changes are what is dramatic, and can happen with only a few degrees. Like I said in my above post, ice ages temperatures and current temperatures only vary by about 9 degrees F. It doesn't take much to throw the world out of whack. The biggest problem is the amount of time the changes are taking place. Earth's natural processes always happened over the course of thousands of years. Now, because of US, the changes are happening over a number of decades instead, and warming is happening faster than the world can adapt.

May I suggest you look up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) website? It's a great one.

Magic? Hardly. No one wants to admit that we do anything to influence climate or the environment because we are stuck in our lifestyles of luxury and don't want to have to give anything up or make any changes.

Due to this record low ice pack on the north pole, the ocean had to have a greater volume of water! Did O'bama lower the seas?

see 1.37 and 1.38

arctic ice is mostly FLOATING ice, FLOATING ice does not affect sea levels, but your conservative illogic makes you far too blind to see the simplest facts.

john haddock that is the most ignorant, retarded, stupid @!$%#ing thing i've ever hear. obamas fault? you think obama could have or should have fixed global warming in three years? seriously?! go do the world a favor and jump of a @!$%#ing bridge!

Kornfed

arctic ice is mostly FLOATING ice, FLOATING ice does not affect sea levels, but your conservative illogic makes you far too blind to see the simplest facts

Interesting phenomina...only floating ice is effected by global warming!

This is yet another example you making statements that are either deliberately obtuse (and trollish) or incomprehensibly ignorant. Based on your newsvine history, it would appear to be the former - you appear to enjoy making controversial statements based off of cherry-picking and "abstract" logic. Unfortunately, not everyone takes the time to look at your newsvine history to see the pattern. Rather, they read your statements and think you incapable of the most basic logic.

Based on your newsvine history, it would appear to be the former - you appear to enjoy making controversial statements based off of cherry-picking and "abstract" logic

I enjoy the discussions. Call me whatever you need to if it makes you feel better.

Rather, they read your statements and think you incapable of the most basic logic.

Your opinion is duly noted. Anything else to offer on the topic?

I read the first 50 or so comments ... so sad some people just can't think. Lets look at some basic, undeniable facts ...

C02 in the atmosphere traps heat, this is a fact.

Current technology (cars, coal burning energy plants, etc.) put CO2 into the atmosphere.

The more cars and fossil fuels burned the more CO2 there is.

Population is increasing.

Thus ... CO2 is growing, thus heat trapped is growing. Only a fool thinks this won't have a noticeable effect at some point.

Conclusion - Deal with the CO2 issue now, or deal with it later when the repercussions will be worse.

Oh, and just remember this little tidbit ... your kids and grandkids will be the ones suffering for your decisions if you're wrong. Do you really want to risk it?

Kornfed: "Warming has occurred in the past without these atmospheric newcomers."

Without CFC's and such, yes, but carbon dioxide and methane have always been responsible for much of the past climate changes, as they are today.

Kornfed

Based on your newsvine history, it would appear to be the former - you appear to enjoy making controversial statements based off of cherry-picking and "abstract" logic

I enjoy the discussions. Call me whatever you need to if it makes you feel better.

Rather, they read your statements and think you incapable of the most basic logic.

Your opinion is duly noted. Anything else to offer on the topic?

I could offer plenty on both the skeptical and the favorable side, but what would be the point? A wise person knows they can't win an argument with a fool - or even a man playing the part of a deliberate fool. If you cant see that you are acting the fool then maybe I should revisit my hypothesis and point back at the second option I outlined.

http://democracy5.newsvine.com/

Without CFC's and such, yes, but carbon dioxide and methane have always been responsible for much of the past climate changes, as they are today

Perhaps it contributed, but hardly the sole reason. Here is a possible reason out of a myriad of reasons climate can change....

The Dalton Minimum was a period of low solar activity, named after the English meteorologist John Dalton, lasting from about 1790 to 1830.^[1] Like the Maunder Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Dalton Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures. The Oberlach Station in Germany, for example, experienced a 2.0°C decline over 20 years.^[2]

Earth wobbles, sun activity, geological activity, plant and animal activity, oceanic current changes, on and on and on and on. The reasons can be many.

Kornfed, nobody said it was the sole reason. Scientists have studied all of those factors. That is how you know about them -- from scientists. Solar activity does indeed affect climate, but it doesn't vary enough to explain most of the short to medium-term climate changes.

And remember that geological activity and plant and animal activity affect climate mostly through the agent of carbon dioxide.

Kornfed, nobody said it was the sole reason. Scientists have studied all of those factors. That is how you know about them -- from scientists. Solar activity does indeed affect climate, but it doesn't vary enough to explain most of the short to medium-term climate changes

Do you admit the possibility that another factor that is not being cast in the limelight of agenda science could be causing our current warming?

Kornfed: "The earth has indeed gone through quick changes in climate."

You are right about this one, but that seems to argue for more concern, not less. The end of the Younger Dryas is the most spectacular example, Global climate changed several degrees in a matter of a few decades (or less). Why? Apparently a combination of feedbacks. Orbital anomalies warm the earth slightly and trigger releases of CO2 from the ocean. This warms the climate further and the resulting ice melt causes decreased albedo and disruption of ocean currents. These triggers and feedbacks should give us a hint that the system is not really something we want to mess around with.

"Do you admit the possibility that another factor that is not being cast in the limelight of agenda science could be causing our current warming?"

Most scientists are not driven by agenda. They study all of the factors. And none claim that 100% of the current changes are defintiely due to humans. But it is the largest factor we see at the moment.

And it wouldn't really matter if there were others things currently changing climate - in fact there probably are. But that doesn't change the fact that we ARE changing the climate, and it is only what WE are doing that we have the choice NOT to do.

So wait a minute. You all think we need to stop contributing to global warming, but you are completely unwilling to give up all the luxuries you benefit from that are a direct result of the very things you say are causing it? That has got to be the biggest hypocrisy in the history of mankind.

Oh and don't even think of saying we can replace the majority of our emissions with green energy. Because while you as an individual may think it's perfectly fine to dot the landscape with wind farms, there's always your fellow progressive standing right next to you shooting it down because the location somehow interrupts the migration or lifestyle of some sort of animal. Or it's a Limousine Liberal who doesn't want a wind farm obstructing their precious view of the ocean from the deck of their Malibu beach house. NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) hypocrites.

You say it's the Republicans who want to take us back to the stone age (war on women you guys love to perpetuate). Well, according to how much you think humans impact the planet, in order to achieve the emissions reductions you're envisioning, we'd all have to go back to the stone age.

And even if you enacted legislation that eliminated the use of fossil fuels, China, India, Russia and all the other countries aren't going to do it. Oh that's right. You want a George Soros new world order where the entire planet is under one global government where you can control everything. It's always been proven that the larger the government, the more wasteful and corrupt it becomes. There has never EVER been an example in history where that wasn't the case.

We only have one planet. I am a firm believer of keeping it clean. I will not argue with that. But you lose all credibility when you burn as much fuel and coal as you do to enjoy your iPhones, iPads, cars (electric or other, it doesn't matter), computers/tv's/video games and tons of other electronics, home appliances, modern medicine, plastic in everything, imported food, and doubled life expectancy over the past 200 years due to research and development that has consumed an ungodly amount of resources and outputted an ungodly amount of waste... etc. etc.

You think some wind farms and solar panels are going to be enough to run everything?

Typical progressives. Their ideology is enthusiastic but completely illogical because they fail to do the simple math.

When you guys first start walking the walk, only then will you be able to talk the talk.

I'll tell you what, you build a completely sustainable city that can house a decent population and provide all locally grown and raised food where the entire population is able to sustain the same quality of life and standard of living without barely using fossil fuels or any products or services that require the use of those resources and I'll back you 100%.

Hell, don't even have to build the city. Just show me the detailed plans and I'll support you.

You know what, you don't even need to do it. Just point to me the plans designed by expert scientists and engineers. Surely there must be the schematics to the finest detail including trade, logistics, infrastructure... everything... laid out for us all to see. Maybe on a website somewhere?

You guys have been screaming for years about the problem, but I see none of you offering any solutions that are even remotely logical. Only solutions you guys offer are no better than an innocent/ignorant little child of 5 tasked by his or her teacher with an assignment on how to make the world better.

jock59801

You are right about this one, but that seems to argue for more concern, not less. The end of the Younger Dryas is the most spectacular example, Global climate changed several degrees in a matter of a few decades (or less). Why? Apparently a combination of feedbacks. Orbital anomalies warm the earth slightly and trigger releases of CO2 from the ocean. This warms the climate further and the resulting ice melt causes decreased albedo and disruption of ocean currents. These triggers and feedbacks should give us a hint that the system is not really something we want to mess around with

I think this strengthens my argument. Its a complex system. Do I want to mess around with our atmosphere? Of course not. But the reality of our world, and of our ever growing population, dictates otherwise. Might I suggest that if we are contributing to global warming, we will either find a new source of energy, or drain our resources long before we irreversibly destroy the earths climate...even for ourselves.

Most scientists are not driven by agenda. They study all of the factors. And none claim that 100% of the current changes are defintiely due to humans. But it is the largest factor we see at the moment.

Now I wouldnt totally dissagree with this statement Jock.

And it wouldn't really matter if there were others things currently changing climate - in fact there probably are. But that doesn't change the fact that we ARE changing the climate, and it is only what WE are doing that we have the choice NOT to do.

I wouldnt call it fact according to the previous statement. It may be a fact that we are changing our atmosphere slightly. It can be said that it might be changing our climate, but certainly not fact.

Kornfed, scientists are not talking about us "destroying the Earth's climate." The problem is that it is changing faster than many ecosystems and human populations can adapt. The result is that more people will suffer than would otherwise have to. Some of us think this is a bad thing. But more importnatly the science remains the science whether we decide to do anything about it or not.

vglance, you come up with lots of excuses not to act. Good for you. But that doesn't change the science, and it doesn't change the fact that there are many things that we CAN do that will help.

Kornfed, science is a matter of probabilities, so you can always claim that anything MIGHT not be true. But as evidence increase for something it becomes increasingly self-deluding to cling to that hope. I hope it all turns out to be wrong too. I don't want people to suffer the consequences. But everything I have seen of the science indicates that they have this one right. Normally in science I am content to wait and see as things unfold. But sometimes waiting has consequences.

The earth has indeed gone through quick changes in climate. This is false.

- Citation please, what was the geologic time period in which this happened? Was it due to any factors like a GCE (global climactic event) like the eruption of a super volcano or an asteroid/comet landing? I would love to hear about this, because every time I have heard of "quick changes" in the Earths climate on a documentary or science driven show like NOVA or Nature, none of them were in as short a timeframe as we are looking at here, and the scientists from the given program(s) are usually quick to point that out, its always on the several hundred to several thousand years timescale, not just a couple hundred years. I would tend to believe an actual scientist who has had peer reviewed work done over some guy posting his opinions on MSN.

This is precisely the point I have been making. Warming has occurred in the past without these atmospheric newcomers.

- These atmospheric newcomers are also known to be greenhouse gasses and are exponentially more so than methane or CO2 - love how you conveniently clipped that out from my original statement. This can account, in part, for the dramatic speed at which our climate is changing from times in the past, while I openly admit that there is no single factor contributing to the warming, the lowest common denominator as far as what has changed in the last 12,000 years or so comes down to man. I never claimed that these were the only factor in warming, but that they were a contributing factor for the speed that we are warming.

Actually, the oceans soak up much more CO2 than plant life on land.

- This is due to microscopic plant life that lives in the oceans, these account for the lions share of CO2 capture and do not thrive well in a warming ocean. This is not to say that land pollution does not have an effect, nice try with the deflection but unfortunately you build very weak strawmen.

This is a possibility to be sure. But I would not dismiss other unknown factors which have indeed caused global warming in the past. To the extent that we could change our atmosphere I believe is highly over exaggerated.

- This is why I started my phrase with "The human factor" but I suppose you were too busy trying to find something to back your claims up, oh wait you weren't. How do you account for the approximately 30% more Carbon in our atmosphere, this is about 100 PPM more than the highest amount ever found and recorded, and this can all be traced back to the time period that had the industrial revolution. All that CO2 that we release into the atmosphere doesn't just float off into space, its all there, back to the first black powder rifle being shot, down to the gas you burned to get to work today. To say that this has no effect on the overall atmosphere or concentration of CO2 shows a serious lack of knowledge or willful ignorance to basic scientific principles.

So you are saying that land ice is completely unaffected? Interesting

- when and where did I say that? your conclusion jumping ability is amazing, you should work in politics! Most land ice gets trapped in reservoirs currently, at least in the civilized world, the trickle-down effect to the ocean is minimal right now because we can sustain most of the additional melt with the increased demand for potable water. Granted none of that water actually disappears, if you know anything about the water cycle, but the most dramatic changes are occurring in the ocean right now, specifically in the polar regions. The land ice pales in comparison to what is at the poles, and will likely last longer than the sea ice does, maybe for about a decade or 2. The time that we see the dramatic rise in ocean water is when we don't see any or very little glaciers around anymore.

Just like a ice cube in a bowl the smaller it gets the faster it melts you do realize that at one time it covered most of the continent, and it will again! the only thing this tells me is that the Ice age is still in recession, to many people are to selective on their studies and don't look at all the collected data and there is tons of data that shows things to be moving on schedule, why not look at all the studies instead of just the ones presented by the people that stand to make a profit by scaring you. besides man can't control the weather anyways and China pollutes far more then North America, do you people really expect the earth to remain the same, unchanged by time? grow a brain there have been over thirty Ice ages, Iceland and Antartica have both been lush green continents before, and if the big coastal cities get flooded out that might just be a plus for your cause because if anything is causing pollution that would be it. there are hundreds of contributing factors to what is going on try looking them all up till then watch out the sky is falling. don't worry so much the ice age will return, sooner then you think. look up the effects of Ocean currents, dead zones and CO2 levels and they all point to a return of the ice age, so everything will eventually go full cycle and nature can't be stopped, maybe everybody should go back to worrying about the ozone being depleted by animals passing gas. go ahead and ban fossil fuels you will starve in a month. that green energy you all talk about does not work and has a high price tag, we could switch to natural gas and hydrogen fuels that would work, but Obama has invested in a defunked program that will not work, Bush started us on a path for hydrogen what happened to that? the by products of hydrogen is water and oxygen cant get much cleaner then that! and all you need is salt water and electricity to make it we have plenty of salt water. if you liberals think you can fix the problem then fix it and quit winning about it. otherwise except the fact that the earth changes with time and thats all there is to it.

Oh and my solution to the global warming, if it is in fact due to us, is a drastic reduction in population. Like down to 2-3 billion. Of course, do it humanely. Instead of war, we all take responsibility by not having as many children as we're having. I'm doing my part by not having any at all.

We don't need a government to restrict children like in China, we just exercise self-discipline. After all, if we cannot do something as simple as this, how do you expect us to have the self-discipline to make even greater sacrifices like progressives are proposing (whether or not they realize how much of a sacrifice their ideas are because their math is wrong)?

Kornfed, science is a matter of probabilities, so you can always claim that anything MIGHT not be true

Jock, I have something on my side of substance. History of past climate change without the influence of man. That is one big might.

Oh and my solution to the global warming, if it is in fact due to us, is a drastic reduction in population. Like down to 2-3 billion. Of course, do it humanely. Instead of war, we all take responsibility by not having as many children as we're having. I'm doing my part by not having any at all.

vglance, I agree with this. Not because I fear global warming, but because of all the other problems over population presents. Resources!

"jock59801

vglance, you come up with lots of excuses not to act. Good for you. But that doesn't change the science, and it doesn't change the fact that there are many things that we CAN do that will help."

#1. While you were writing this, I was already writing what my contribution is (not having children). And in addition, I recycle and reuse everything I possibly can. Years ago I bought a $1,500 commercial distiller to make pure drinking water so I'm no longer going through water bottles like crazy which is what most people do here in Vegas since the tap water is nasty. I do far more than the average person, including liberals.

#2. Instead of saying there are many things we can do to help, which we can, but it still won't be enough, please explain what we can do to reverse the global impact while maintaining our quality of life and standard of living.

Of course there are little things we can do here and there. But you all as a collective who point the fingers that others have proven yourselves to be unwilling to make the sacrifices. That is where the hypocrisy lies. You want change to happen at a significant level to reverse Global warming, but then you stop at just doing the little things.

Exactly Kornfed, I didn't even touch upon the other benefits because I was assuming they would be understood. You have civilizations where mothers are having 10+ kids to counter the fact that more than half of them die from starvation. Maybe, just maybe they shouldn't be living on land that cannot support the existing population to begin with.

We have people living in areas below sea level, in the path of tornadoes/hurricanes, on hills/cliffs that erode, on fault lines, and next to volcanic activity and then they cry for government help when the inevitable happens.

Kornfed: " I have something on my side of substance. History of past climate change without the influence of man."

We all know there has been natural climate change. We also know it says nothing about whether we can affect it ALSO. Yes, it all we had was observed temperature, we couldn't differentitate between human and natural causes. But that isn't all we have. We have extensive knowledge of how carbon dioxide affects climate.

vglance. You are totally correct. it is all of us.

man made global warming is a hoax. it cant be proven because the suns output changes yearly and has 12 year cycles.

We can also measure solar luminosity John. You're worse than Kornfed, your entire existence is a hoax my friend. HAARPPPP!!>!>!

Roscoe

Lots of words and NO facts. I can't spend the time countering all of your erroneous arguments. You've swallowed the right wing kool-aid. Haddock, to paraphrase Pauli, that's so dumb it's not even wrong.

Don't Be A Moron's post #1.95 - of Kornfed was spot on. LMAO.

D Buck-2239568 post #1.112

why not look at all the studies instead of just the ones presented by the people that stand to make a profit by scaring you

Look at ALL the studies...?

You mean the 0.01% of the Conservative Think-Tank studies that suggest that man had no involvement in the warming cycle we're currently in? Or the 99.99% of the entire scientific community's studies that suggest mankind is having a very real effect on global warming.

Which studies should we be looking at? ...And how exactly do these studies that raise the alarms about Global Warming profiting the scientists and academia where they originate? I bet we can show where the profits are on the 00.01% of the studies showing Global Warming to be a hoax though.

I bet you need to show some evidence of your 00.01% BS statement.

the far right doesn't need evidence, they have "faith".

who needs facts and such when all you have to do is "believe"?

Greg-2438150

I bet you need to show some evidence of your 00.01% BS statement.

www(dot)sciencedaily(dot)com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

This pretty much backs up what I'm saying. What'chu got cupcake?

That link agrees with what I'm saying. Cupcake? Really?

"Cupcake" - Anjisan must have been hungry when that was posted. I expect the next person to be replied to to be nicknamed "bacon" or some such. ;-p

Alright, alright, alright... Okay... I was hungry when I posted. No harm, no foul, right bacon lips?

I also may have overstated the facts, but the facts remain as demonstrated in the link that an overwhelming majority of scientists agree that a human caused climate shift is occurring with the bulk of the skeptics against climate change also happen to be the Petro-Chemical scientists...

Anjisan,

There are a few scientists who're not in the field who disagree, I believe one of them is a physics professor at either MIT, Harvard or Stanford.. but I don't remember which exactly. I'm sure you could Google search their op-ed they did. I believe he was more pissed by a science charter that said human global warming was un-debatable. As we should all be aware, everything is up for argument.

But yeah, 100% of the scientists who work in the field agree.

John Haddock

Why hasn't Obamas green programs stopped this ice from melting? Obama has been president for almost 4 years and this is the worst that the ice has been in the past 30 years? Clearly Obama has failed to stop the ice from melting with his green jobs initiative. It’s clear they don't work. All the libs on here crying about the ice melting have done NOTHING to stop it from happening. all the libs on here are sitting in their homes using their a/c, driving their cars that burn fossil fuels, drink their coffee in Styrofoam or paper cups and fill up landfills, use incandescent light bulbs in their homes, have underinflated tires, using electricity to power their laptops and I-pads from coal burning power plants. Then these same people
turn around and blame it on people like Rush Limbaugh.

LOL you are all HYPOCRITES!!!

Do you really expect that after four years of being President that his green jobs initiative would have an immediate effect on the global environment? Do you think that really? Then I say that you’re the one that is being a hypocrite and a fool. You cannot just fix the global warming issue overnight, I’m sorry it just can’t be done.

People were throwing CFC’s up into the atmosphere before they realized that it was destroying the Ozone Layer and then a ban on aerosol cans took effect. But it is going to take 100 years or more before the Ozone layer can be fully repaired by mother earth. If everyone thinks that global warming is a myth then where is your proof? Where is your evidence? There is all kinds of evidence that says global warming and its effects is posted on websites everywhere but where is yours that says that it is a myth and that
global warming is in fact fake?

I will tell you, it’s NOWHERE! The only lies are from the skeptics that get paid to say that global warming does not exist!

Oh BTW! I took the time to correct your spelling. Since you forgot to perform a spell check!

Global Warming is just that, GLOBAL! It's not just the United States that has to stop global warming, but in fact the whole world! As long as people and companies worldwide keep throwing CO2 emissions up into the air, global warming is in fact going to get worse. Now you take a look at the picture at the top of the article. Those dimensions are in fact correct!

Scientists studying global warming also predicted severe droughts and rampant forest fires back in 2004. Well its 2012 and what do we see:

Drought covering over 56% of the country in particular Americas bread basket. Yeah, the place where all our food is grown and cattle raised!

38 forest fires covering 10 states from California all the way to Colorado and still counting!

Tell me that this is not just the beginning of a greater warning signs of global warming. All one has to do is put all the pieces together and you get a good picture.

Just continue to think that there is no such thing as global warming! All you have to do is just provide the proof that it isn't real. I await your reply!

All the people saying that there is an agenda are correct, the agenda of the fossil fuel companies to deny the facts and keep the profits coming in. Why care about the future if you can make a buck now?

Don't de-laud it completely; petroleum helps maintain your quality of life.

"Climate change breaks the ice: 3-man sailboat makes record voyage"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-global-warming-northwest-passage-20120903,0,380298.story

Warming global temperatures and melting polar ice caps have helped a trio of explorers go where few men have gone before.

In an account of their voyage posted Monday, the crew of the 31-foot Belzebub II — a fiberglass sailboat with a living space the size of a bathroom — described how they crossed through the M'Clure Strait in northern Canada, a decreasingly ice-packed route through the famed Northwest Passage.

The international three-man crew — an American, Canadian and Swede — claim to have piloted the first sailboat to do so.

...

"Our approach to sail across a historical stretch of water that has traditionally been frozen is meant to be a clear visual example of the extent of declining polar ice," the group said in a statement.

Though environmentalists decry the shrinking polar ice caps — and coastal regions are already having to cope with the ominous (and expensive) rise of sea levels — the opening of the traditionally ice-blocked Northwest Passage would bring potentially lucrative new shipping routes.

The Belzebub II, in the meantime, is expected to continue its journey toward the Pacific Ocean to become the first sailboat to navigate the Northwest Passage, the sailors said.

Nice Article Mike.

Soulman,

so tell me what you would like to see? Should we just nationalize everything? tax all profits at 100 percent? What do you think would happen if business owners just up and closed their doors since it does not pay to run their businesses any more?

Subnormal,

That's the exact question Ayn Rand asked in Atlas Shrugged. It's telling that 70 years ago a woman born in a communist country would predict where our country was heading. Who is John Galt indeed.

Ayn Rand, like yourselves, was an extremist. No one is suggesting we close every business etc. We just need to adjust to the reality around us. As difficult as it may seem to adapt now to this reality, it pales in comparison to the future costs to our children and their children if we continue to deny and do nothing.

The fact remains Cllinton is negotiating on behalf of Obama for our share of the arctic oil reserves. If you think democrats are any different from republicans on this you are synaptically challenged. Democrats can just lie about it with a straight face.

Green is a rich man's game. With Obama bankrupting the country, we can no longer afford green. Prosperity has to come first or we'lll have no country to save.

Fascist liberals care more about what happens a century from now more than a family having to put food on the table today. Tell Obama to stop the war on capitalism, on corporations, on profits, and get the hell out of the way. Once he's out of office and we can return to prosperity, people can afford solar panels on rooftops, Nissan Leaf's, etc.

If Obama is allowed to turn us into Greece, you won't be able to afford anything, green or not.

Time to call you libs out, next post tell us how many solar panels you have! What is in your driveway!

Sub: If one business has to adhere to certain environmental standards, and a competitor does not, then the first business is at a disadvantage. But if both have to comply with the same standards, then there is no competitive difference and both should be able to continue in business. Granted, the costs of meeting environmental standards would be passed on to the consumer, but so are all the other costs of doing business. Your argument is fallacious. It is possible to adhere to environmental standards and make a profit at the same time, as many, many businesses have demonstrated.

It is possible to adhere to environmental standards and make a profit at the same time

In the case of green tech the savings should eventually drastically reduce the cost of producing energy as much of the industry will be more standardized, mass produced, and directly accessible to the consumer. That will begin to also break-up the monopolies the oil and gas industries have in the energy sector right now.

Valhalla - 'fascist liberal' is an oxymoron, fascism is a far right political view, essentially the ideological opposite of communism. And Government staying out of the way of corporations was the Bush years, and that put us right where we are now, so I'm inclined to disagree

Valhalla...

You weren't the brightest bulb in the pack were you...?

Fascist liberals care more about what happens a century from now more than a family having to put food on the table today.

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer? Not running any Academic Olympics today, are we?

What a fine consumer you are... Like the Aesop fable of the grasshopper and the ant, you just want to play and have fun, and who cares about the coming change in the seasons? The ant is just a big dummy with all his futile preparations for the winter. Why bother? Have fun.

Let me put it to you this way... and... I'll... Talk... Slowly...

Our country is in this state, because we've failed to prepare. Anytime we had some prosperous times, our leaders, in power, squandered all the money paying their corporate lobbying pals for every pork barrel project they were brought. We knew about the diminishing oil fields way back in the 70s, and did nothing to change the status quo because that would have hurt our automobile and oil industries.. We knew back in the 80's that our energy infrastructure was in danger and we were becoming more aware of the potential for man made climate change.

Eh... Who cares? It'd affect business... Don't want to be putting anyone out of work, do we...? Tell that to all the farmers in the midwest and the south who lost their crops this summer.

Buddy boy, I'll tell ya... Doing nothing for much longer is going to get really friggin' expensive really soon.

Yes there is a level playing field in the united states, but other countries do not follow the same rules. That is why we have a problem. If we had a world standard with no exemptions than we could all play ball.

As there are more and more people on the planet we are going to use resources faster and faster. I am actually more worried about water than anything else.

Valhalla - Quick! Pull your pants up... wayyyy up, your ignorance is showing.

Physcotica,

My name comes from a small rock band, I happen to like the name and their music.

Your name fits you well. You have succumbed to "all or nothing thinking," a cognitive distortion that renders your comment as ridiculous as stating that the Moon is made of green cheese.

I have not succumbed to anything. I am a realist. Look around you, name the limiting factors in our society.

I will make it easy for you.

Water,

Oil, fossil fuels in general

Air-able land.

As our cities take up more and more country side that was used to produce crops, we put more pressure on the farmers to have good yields every year. This in turn leads to more and more irrigation. We have unlimited water on the planet, but pump-able water is limited. We are already using water from aquifers faster than that water is replaced.

The other factor is effientency, as we increase effeintency we need fewer workers to do the same job. We will run out of work for the poplulation unless we do something different.

We don't have unlimited FRESH water. You're not going to be watering crops with sea water, even if transporting it wasn't an issue.

BrainCandy-3328906

It is possible to adhere to environmental standards and make a profit at the same time

In the case of green tech the savings should eventually drastically reduce the cost of producing energy as much of the industry will be more standardized, mass produced, and directly accessible to the consumer. That will begin to also break-up the monopolies the oil and gas industries have in the energy sector right now.

You are working under the assumption that things will keep on getting cheaper. That is true to a point, but if the energy needed to make something or I should say the cost of energy continues to go up, your assumption does not hold true. You fail to take into account all the fossil fuels that are needed to mine, transport, refine, build and finally install your green energy source. The most effient power plant we have right now is natural gas. Think about your house furnace, the cheap ones are running at about 87% effeinency. the good ones are closer to 97%. Nothing else even comes close to that.

Also you have to think about the ease of shipment. Oil can be pumped through a pipe very easily. The same with natural gas. Electricity you lose power for every mile it has to travel. You lose more at each and every sub station. You lose again when it gets to the transformer by your house. Every appliance in your house has a loss as well.

We can be cleaner, but we need to target the worst and work our way up. Instead we are keeping the bad and adding other things to it. There is no rhyme nor reason to what we are doing. We use corn for fuel which is a net loss as far as energy goes.

That should be the first thing that goes.

No we do not use sea water for irrigation, but we do have water plants that takes sea water and makes it drinkable. It is widely used in the middle east. no reason we could not do the same thing here.

Why hasn't Obamas green programs stopped this ice from melting? obama has been president for almost 4 years and this is the worst that the ice has been in the past 30 years?

Clearly obama has failed to stop the ice from melting with his green jobs initiative. its clear they don't work.

All the libs on here crying about the ice melting have done NOTHING to stop it from happening. all the libs on here are sitting in their homes using their a/c, driving their cars that burn fossil fuels, drink their coffee in styrofoam or paper cups and fill up landfills, use incandescent lightbulbs in their homes, have underinflated tires, using electricity to power their laptops and ipads from coal burning power plants.

Then these same people turn around and blame it on people like Rush Limbaugh.

LOL you are all HYPOCRITES!!!

John Haddock - All the libs on here crying about the ice melting have done NOTHING to stop it from happening. all the libs on here are sitting in their homes using their a/c, driving their cars that burn fossil fuels, drink their coffee in styrofoam or paper cups and fill up landfills, use incandescent lightbulbs in their homes, have underinflated tires, using electricity to power their laptops and ipads from coal burning power plants.

Really, John Haddock? Open your mouth and prove your ignorance.

Not all of us are driving around in Hummers humming real loud so we can't hear the truth.

you are using electricity though to post on this message board. That probably came from Coal. The plastic in your computer comes from OIL!!

Like I said you are a hypocrite.

Really Mr. Know-it-all, aren't we?

Guess what, Mr. Smart Guy - my energy is 100% wind.

And plastic can be made from lots of things, including corn starch.

Now put that in your oil-addled brain and go do YOUR part.

So give me the percentage of plastics that are made from corn starch, and what products are made with corn starch?

Corn starch to make plastic. Next you will complain that food prices are too high because greedy corn companies are using it to make your ipads.

LOL like I said you are a hypocrite.

Oh and go take a picture of your 100% wind energy power grid that you use to power your home. email the pics to

johnhaddock@hotmail.com

Oh and let me know what you do when your wind isn't blowing? I guess you have no power since you claim you are 100% wind powered.

@subnormal, ever heard of mass production. It's what brings most of the things you own into the realm of affordability. And as I've said, more standardization of parts, and marketing and sales directly to consumers. How much were HD tv's 5-6 years ago? How much are they now, with better more mature technology? Your again ignoring certain undeniable realities to cling to a point you have no practical defense for. Many people at the consumer level are already producing an excess of their own energy requirements and sell that excess to local electricity producers. That's a trend that will only increase. Now before you reply and doubt the century worth of proof of the impact that mass production has on affordability and availability, take a look at your computer and ponder the effective cost of that machine and it's parts if it weren't mass produced by the millions.

@JohnHaddock,

Oh and let me know what you do when your wind isn't blowing?

You store your excess when the wind is blowing. Imbecile!

How do you store it? With batteries? How were those batteries made? What method was used to get those batteries to your house?

Fossil fuels were used to make those batteries. Dirty rotten ice melting fossil fuels!! Batteries have lead. Lead is poisonous. It takes fossil fuels to get lead out of the earth. That lead can then end up in the water table killing us all.

Have you people no respect for others with your lead filled batteries that need the use of fossil fuels to be made and transported to your homes?

John Galt is Ayn Rand after the sex change...Ayn Rand only cared about Ayn Rand.

yes computers have grown cheaper, but think about it, as we add speed to it the cost goes back up. TV will do the same. There is a finite limit to production costs being lower. Take the penny we make billions of them but the cost exceeds the value.

Another example is cars, we produce millions of cars but the cost keep on going up.

Granted you get more bang for your buck, but there is still a bottom limit. As energy costs go up the bottom limit goes up as well. As easy metal to build things go up, the drives the costs up as well. Longer transportation logistics will drive the cost up.

We make billions of batteries right now, as the cost goes down new technologies drive the cost back up.

Wind turbines need 3000 pounds of copper, think about that for a second. That is just the copper for the generator. That does not include the power lines, the metal for the tower itself the concrete needed for the footings, or any other material needed. Also think about how big they are, as they get bigger the cost of transporting goes up, the cost of installation increases as well. That also effects the cost of maintenance.

So yes maybe the initial cost goes down, it might even go down a lot compared to the wattage output, but the overall cost of it will increase.

BrainCandy,

Many people at the consumer level are already producing an excess of their own energy requirements and sell that excess to local electricity producers. That's a trend that will only increase.

Have you talked to these people? Do you have any idea how much money they spent on their power generating devices?

Yes there are some people selling power back to the grid. Once you talk to them you find out that they invested thousands of dollars into it. They have 10 or more acres of land and that they are trully not all the energy independent.

The ocean's temperature has been gradually increasing the last several years, that lends itself to the dwindling polar caps as much as anything.

It's climate change. Warming can be a part of it, it doesn' happen evenly over the globe.

Was in the Northern areas of Alaska and The Yukon last year. The locals there are quite concerned with the permafrost melt associated with climate change. We saw it for ourselves.

Hi Laura... Around FNSB myself...It really has been cool and rainy this spring/summer/fall. I don't know what to say about the weather other than it is cyclic and it will always be cyclic until the world stops turning.

It seems that every year the people are worried about the weather/perma frost/tundra and make a big deal out of it, no matter what it's doing.

Yeah, but stop being stupid...all your permafrost is melting and there is big trouble up your way...I know first hand...wake up

Steven... YOU ROCK.... you know first hand how....how many years can you go back??? Are you a scientist that deals with permafrost directly ??? Do you know what the permafrost has done within the last 2-3 hundred years??? If you do you know more than anyone I have ever known

Don't be so quick to judge someone that has admittedly to say they didn't know about the ACTUAL findings other than they were cyclic.

OK then man is the cause of global warming. So first we take all the people who drill, produce, or sell fossil fuel and execute them. It is minor but the population must be reduced so it's a start. Next we scrap all cars, airplanes, power plants, and all that run on an internal combustion engine or electricity and while we are at it execute all those involved with the production, distribution and/or sale of said item. Next we really must dramatically increase the horse, oxen, and donkey population as they will be much needed for transportation and planting. Then we need to go to war with China and India as they refuse (among others) to comply with energy savings and the destruction of their livelihood. When the war ends we will probably have a greatly reduced population then we will want to sterilize 90% of men and women to prevent re-population. Then of course we can dispose of the weapons and all militaries putting the soldiers to work on the farms to feed the population the good organic food being grown. Now finally we have UTOPIA no cars, no planes, no commerce, no cities, no air conditioning, no television, radio, or newspapers. But wait who will over see this wonderful transformation? Who will insure that we keep in line? Who has cars? air conditioning? electricity? planes? military? ah crap foiled again. It is just the peon the low class that give it up so the ruling class can maintain their comfort and security. All I know is that I am so glad that the dinosaurs were annihilated because of the damage their Brontosaurusmobile was doing to the climate, and somehow I missed the predicted ice age that was coming when I was in 6th grade freezing the planet and starving everyone. Is the earth warming YES is it caused by man in some small fashion possibly but the Earth has cycles and it is in a warming cycle most likely at the end of it. Want to conserve DO IT. Want to feel like you are helping SAVE THE PLANET do it. I conserve and feel good that I am in a small way contributing but REALLY all this crap and whining and there is NO SOLUTION for you people other than turning your life and freedoms over to Algore and his moronic clan? Goodnight little ones you are so sad.

Doeyes101: "Permafrost" basically means it's ground that's frozen for two or more years, as in frozen during summer and winter. However, the permafrost that they're most concerned about has been frozen since the Pleistocene(2.5 million to 12,000 years ago).

So, permafrost melting (especially in northern Alaska and Siberia) is not cyclic, it's a profound change to our climate that human beings have never lived through.

Barney-617669: Unfortunately, you are the problem and not the solution.

Come on Barney. You don't have to make a fool of yourself with ridiculous scenarios.

Monkey

In the Fairbanks area ( I was talking to Laura first and then Steven btw) the permafrost was a big deal for the past few years. I have not heard anything this year....but it has been cool and rainy all summer. I know what permafrost is and I wasn't discussing the whole worlds ice or permafrost.

Oh, and in certain areas permafrost receeds and comes back....ie cyclic

@Laura & others, global warming doesn't mean the whole globe heats up uniformly. There are many factors that contribute to weather patterns in different areas. Many tried to make the same argument as we saw many areas of the country slammed by big snow storms last year. But contrary to your short-sighted beliefs, global warming really explains that effect very accurately also. Global warming isn't going to end the changing of the seasons, but warmer water temps would contribute greatly to fueling storms with more moisture and delivering heavier snowfall and more possible storms over the course of a season.

Fairbanks? Really?

Then, please educate yourself on the work of Dr. Katey Walter Anthony of the UNIVERSITY OF FAIRBANKS who has been documenting methane seeps north of the Fairbanks region for the past several years. She's considered one of the world's experts on permafrost melting and has been on the NY Times, National Geographic and TV. Yes, TV!

Actually, you can't be from Fairbanks. I used to live in Ketchikan and even we "southerners" knew about the problems "northerners" were having from permafrost melt.

I smell a fib.

Monkey, yes for a few years there have been issues all over the news..., Not this year though...why is that??? Please educate me as to why I say this year and you get all accusatory to me??? And as far as North of Fairbanks...(how far North also this year)...tell me about this years permafrost???? And before you say you smell a fib... Educate yourself and READ WHAT WAS WROTE>>> and NOT WHAT YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE READ...

Why hasn't Obamas green programs stopped this ice from melting? obama has been president for almost 4 years and this is the worst that the ice has been in the past 30 years?

Clearly obama has failed to stop the ice from melting with his green jobs initiative. its clear they don't work.

All the libs on here crying about the ice melting have done NOTHING to stop it from happening. all the libs on here are sitting in their homes using their a/c, driving their cars that burn fossil fuels, drink their coffee in styrofoam or paper cups and fill up landfills, use incandescent lightbulbs in their homes, have underinflated tires, using electricity to power their laptops and ipads from coal burning power plants.

Then these same people turn around and blame it on people like Rush Limbaugh.

LOL you are all HYPOCRITES!!!

The Independent (August 2012): Other scientists have observed huge plumes of methane being released from beneath the permafrost of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia.

BBC -- May 2012: Scientists have identified thousands of sites in the Arctic where methane that has been stored for many millennia is bubbling into the atmosphere....

NYT -- May 2012: Methane held underground by caps of Arctic ice is bubbling out as a warming climate causes those caps to melt, researchers report in the journal Nature Geoscience. (UNIVERSITY OF FAIRBANKS REPORT)

NASA -- April 2012: Now a multi-institutional study by Eric Kort of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., has uncovered a surprising and potentially important new source of Arctic methane: the ocean itself.

Scientific American: May 2012: Scientists continue to discover more and more of the powerful greenhouse gas escaping from the thawing Arctic

And, Mr. Doeyes101, concerning this year's permafrost melt, look at the map at http://www.care2.com/causes/thawing-permafrost-wreaks-havoc-in-the-arctic.html and note the 2012 satelite photo and how much of North America is facing permafrost melt.

Any other questions?

hahaha Monkey....most permafrost is UNDER, yes Under the ground, Not on top of the ground, Most of the issues the locals were dealing with, are in fact the soil under their buildings and roads were sinking. I am not speaking of above ground ice nor am I speaking of glaciers....Nice try though, If you really were here you would know that.... Not talking about the local 24/7 ice.....CAUSE the only ice view I can see from my home is still on the mountain tops....however they really determine the sat photos is all weather dependant

Monkey,

Doeyes101 is right.

The picture with this story is sea ice - glacial.

It truly has nothing to do with the permafrost that we have underground. Most of the problems that I'm aware of with the permafrost here are when people disturb the ground cover over the permafrost, exposing it and causing it to melt. We have a few projects where people seem to know what they're doing like a radio tower that has refrigerated poles stuck in the ground to keep the permafrost frozen.

John, please stop repeating the same post over and over. Obama is doing what he can, including raising vehicle fuel efficiency standards, which will have a positive impact. We know it's going to take a lot more to solve the problem, including commitments from both political parties and other nations such as China.

Cant help it if John Haddock is a repeat offender!

Are you going to get your electric power for the mower from a windmill or from a diesel powered power plant?

Push reel mower, no power required, work like a charm.

Richard don't wait for electric car sell your POS car get a bicycle. While you are at it shut down all eletrical power in your residence and think of the impact that will have on your little voice! "saving Mother Earth!"

You people are funny. There's a big difference between being conscious of wasting energy or producing more pollution than necessary, and not using electric or oil at all. No matter how you look at it though, gas and oil are finite resources. Every day there's a little less. Alternative energy sources aren't a novelty. They are a growing necessity. The longer you run from that fact, the more we're going to pay playing catch-up or buying the technology from those that are putting serious efforts into developing and marketing these technologies.

Why hasn't Obamas green programs stopped this ice from melting? obama has been president for almost 4 years and this is the worst that the ice has been in the past 30 years?

Clearly obama has failed to stop the ice from melting with his green jobs initiative. its clear they don't work.

All the libs on here crying about the ice melting have done NOTHING to stop it from happening. all the libs on here are sitting in their homes using their a/c, driving their cars that burn fossil fuels, drink their coffee in styrofoam or paper cups and fill up landfills, use incandescent lightbulbs in their homes, have underinflated tires, using electricity to power their laptops and ipads from coal burning power plants.

Then these same people turn around and blame it on people like Rush Limbaugh.

LOL you are all HYPOCRITES!!!

Just another piece of the puzzle. The U.S. Navy has been taking measurements of ice thickness and density in and around the North Pole since the 50's. They verify and reinforce the satellite readings and core readings done by researchers.

Michael Omaha post #6, respectfully I differ with your logic and encourage you to look at the links provided below. I've included a link with the data supporting Global Warming hypothesis. You may be surprised to learn that one link regards the findings of a scientist funded by the Koch Brothers. They are major contributors to the GOP the intent was to squash any controversy over Fracking and terminate any arguments regarding Global Warming. I would pay attention to the timeline of data being used to compare opposed to "34 years of record keeping," as you suggest. I think after reviewing these articles you may reconsider your own position as there is now enough evidence to support the hypothesis/theory as a real and genuine concern.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all

http://berkeleyearth.org/

A whole 34 years of record keeping and they use scare tactics about an "ice free North Pole". Lemming science at its best.

Why doesn't this scare you Michael? It should. It should make you piss in your pants, scared. This is massive global climate change over the course of 30 years. Don't you get it? Animals and ecosystems that have thrived for 10 of thousands of years are disappearing overnight. 30 years. Things are disappearing in 30 years. Ask the people in the Maldives what they plan because in the next decade if things keep up the way they are you won't be able to go to the Maldives. Their airport will be underwater. Ask the polar bears who can't find food because their habitat has disappeared overnight.

Why do you not get this? What will it take for people like you to pull your head out of the sand and look around.

This is huge. This is happening overnight. This is no natural long term arc of global climate change. This is nothing brought about by a natural disaster other than man.

this is freaking serious. And the first fight will be over water. You've gotten just a tiny little inkling of what that might be like this summer with the drought that never broke in the middle of the country. Just imagine what's going to happen when all of those people in the world can't have potable water...

Just imagine the day....

Michael, the point is that we are seeing more change in 30 years than in the previous 6,000 years, possibly even in the past 800,000 years. Doesn't that tell you ANYTHING?

So who are you going to commit genocide against? The US is lowering it's carbon footprint, the third world is full speed ahead.

If you think it's the US, pray tell, how many solar panels do you own? What is in your driveway? Are you a player or a poser? I'm guessing poser, let the excuses begin.

Well, the world population is not going down, the rate of increase of pollution from the rest of the country is still going up, but in the U.S. the amount of CO2 emissions have dropped to the lowest levels in 20 years. So what can be done about it Mary and Jim and mj. Your panic and hysteria is not very helpful.

It there is a tipping point it was most likely reached a long time ago and nothing can or will be done to reverse the effects of global warming and climate change. Guess we will just have to adapt to the change and ride it out.

Why hasn't Obamas green programs stopped this ice from melting? obama has been president for almost 4 years and this is the worst that the ice has been in the past 30 years?

Clearly obama has failed to stop the ice from melting with his green jobs initiative. its clear they don't work.

All the libs on here crying about the ice melting have done NOTHING to stop it from happening. all the libs on here are sitting in their homes using their a/c, driving their cars that burn fossil fuels, drink their coffee in styrofoam or paper cups and fill up landfills, use incandescent lightbulbs in their homes, have underinflated tires, using electricity to power their laptops and ipads from coal burning power plants.

Then these same people turn around and blame it on people like Rush Limbaugh.

LOL you are all HYPOCRITES!!!

john haddock=moron troll

just ignore the fool

It is just one of many examples of the effects of global warming, which can be see all over the world. But an ice-free Arctic summer is going to be pretty dramatic, even if it has happened before. Especially when it becomes the norm.

That's great Rob, why don't you send that to the American Journal of Climatology Studies. I'm sure your impeccable empirical methods will be welcome, since those scientists have never taken a stats class.

The Arctic has not been ice free for about 800,000 years, long before humans evolved as a species, let alone built civilizations, let alone tried to support several billion people.

Once the Arctic becomes open ocean, warming in general will accelerate, partly because water will absorb energy that ice would reflect, and more importantly because that thawing will allow peat in the "perma"frost to decay and release enormous quantities of methane. Once those processes are in motion it will be virtually impossible to stop the transition within a few centuries to a planetary climate that is entirely ice-free and about 10C warmer than now.

I respectfully disagree. It will still be dark and cold for months at a time and ice will continue to form in the winter and melt in the summer. Happens every year.

Why hasn't Obamas green programs stopped this ice from melting? obama has been president for almost 4 years and this is the worst that the ice has been in the past 30 years?

Clearly obama has failed to stop the ice from melting with his green jobs initiative. its clear they don't work.

All the libs on here crying about the ice melting have done NOTHING to stop it from happening. all the libs on here are sitting in their homes using their a/c, driving their cars that burn fossil fuels, drink their coffee in styrofoam or paper cups and fill up landfills, use incandescent lightbulbs in their homes, have underinflated tires, using electricity to power their laptops and ipads from coal burning power plants.

Then these same people turn around and blame it on people like Rush Limbaugh.

LOL you are all HYPOCRITES!!!

If the water is warm enough, THE ICE DOESN'T COME BACK WAlly. Check it out, google a little.

It is not "just plain stupid" to point out dramatic changes in the world around us.

Rob, ignorance is nothing to be proud about. Nautilus did not surface from under the North pole in 1958. While googleing that, try also "climate change feedback loops", you might learn something. It's kinda like compound interest, although teapublicans don't believe in economic concepts either, so....never mind.

3 August, at 2315 (EDST) she became the first watercraft to reach the geographic North Pole. From the North Pole, she continued on and after 96 hours and 1,590 nmi (2,940 km) under the ice, she surfaced northeast of Greenland

Nautilus did not surface at the North Pole.

As to your .006 figure ... not sure where you got that but, in case you missed other articles, ice is also melting in Greenland, South Pole, just about any glacier you care to mention ...

Rob, Arctic sea ice, the Greenland ice cap, the Antarctic ice cap, and glaciers around the world are losing a combined total of about 1,000 cubic kilometers of ice per year. That's about twice the volume of water the Mississippi river discharges each year.

You may think that's not significant, but every national academy of sciences in the world begs to differ.

Why should I believe you, you are not a scientist.

Why hasn't Obamas green programs stopped this ice from melting? obama has been president for almost 4 years and this is the worst that the ice has been in the past 30 years?

Clearly obama has failed to stop the ice from melting with his green jobs initiative. its clear they don't work.

All the libs on here crying about the ice melting have done NOTHING to stop it from happening. all the libs on here are sitting in their homes using their a/c, driving their cars that burn fossil fuels, drink their coffee in styrofoam or paper cups and fill up landfills, use incandescent lightbulbs in their homes, have underinflated tires, using electricity to power their laptops and ipads from coal burning power plants.

Then these same people turn around and blame it on people like Rush Limbaugh.

LOL you are all HYPOCRITES!!!

Wait a few million years or so -- Everyone will be complaining about global chilling. They will blame everything under the sun. But not the sun itself. Silly humans.

Kidding aside, the sun has been (and is) in a very active cycle at the moment. While humans can exacerbate the problem, they are not the cause of it. (Great comment on the release of methane, loved that post particularly.) Maybe we can refund NASA and hurl ice cubes at the sun. That'll fix things for sure! (Remove tongue from cheek.) Maybe we can harvest all that released methane from the permafrost! That'll teach those insensitive, profit-driven oil companies!

My main observation here (and elsewhere): Mixing singly-focused ideological nonsense and science is a bad, bad practice. To cite -- and paraphrase -- Will Smith's character in I, Robot: Some of ya'll are the dumbest smart people I know.

Not too thick. It's not there.

There is virtually no Arctic ice thicker than 6 meters now.

In just the past 30 years, the volume of Arctic sea ice in September has dropped by about 75%, from 16,000 km^3 to 4,000 km^3. And the melt rate is accelerating.

Valhalla, before we address the question of what to do about, can we first agree on the reality of the situation?

Or are you arguing that we should throw out hard scientific data if we're not bicycling to work each day?

I'm not sure how the amount of ice in the arctic, and my correcting the claim that a sub surfaced at the North Pole in 1958, makes me a "player or poser". But if it makes you happier to know:

We have a Ford Fusion (which doesn't actually use fusion - bummer), driven rarely. 9 months of the year 90% of my day-to-day transport is by bike; I wimp out and use the car more during the winter. When I worked in construction as a younger man I had a Ford F-250.

I've considered solar photovoltaic panels and do not consider them cost-effective for my situation. I do have solar hot water (supplemented by natural gas when required).

I built my own home with energy efficiency as a central requirement. We heat/cool with a geothermal heat pump, closed loop, and I figure that it's operating cost is about 40% of what it would cost to operate a gas forced air system.

Efficient appliances and lights, of course. I've also checked for appliance "vampires" (I do home inspections, and have the tools to see what is drawing what amount of current when supposedly "turned off"), and addressed those appliances by having them externally switched or getting rid of them.

My parent's farm has a windmill - it's part of a larger windmill installation - they tell me that the rent they receive from the utility is more than fair compensation for the modest bother of having a tower in the back corner of the property. They've let the utility know that they have room for another windmill if they would like to add another to their property.

What's your point Phil?

The ice at the poles I think is 1-2 meters. That's pretty thin. An slightly earlier melt would destroy totally.

Don't you remember? Obama bragged he has produced more oil than Bush did. You going to start with Obama?

Why hasn't Obamas green programs stopped this ice from melting? obama has been president for almost 4 years and this is the worst that the ice has been in the past 30 years?

Clearly obama has failed to stop the ice from melting with his green jobs initiative. its clear they don't work.

All the libs on here crying about the ice melting have done NOTHING to stop it from happening. all the libs on here are sitting in their homes using their a/c, driving their cars that burn fossil fuels, drink their coffee in styrofoam or paper cups and fill up landfills, use incandescent lightbulbs in their homes, have underinflated tires, using electricity to power their laptops and ipads from coal burning power plants.

Then these same people turn around and blame it on people like Rush Limbaugh.

LOL you are all HYPOCRITES!!!

@JimCA:

I'd agree to saying it's a problem. I won't, however, agree that it is a human-caused problem (human-exacerbated, yes). And as long as you are willing to accept scientific data that shows the sun is burning hotter (and has been for a while now) and is one of the primary reasons for our current "climate change" problem. By the way, global temps are up on Venus and Mars as well.

So rather than point ideologic fingers at one another, we should be focusing on solutions. And, no, I don't entirely mean "green" technology For example, do the drivers of electric cars know how much harm producing the batteries of those vehicles is doing in China and other places that manufacture them? NIMBY syndrome at it's finest!

Drought, for instance, is prevalent in the western US even while the eastern-central regions experience flooding. Where are the pipelines to divert the overflow to reservoirs in the west? I merely cite one instance where we can apply technologies we already know (like pumping oil great distances) to "terraform" our own planet.

But it seems we take greater delight in applying ideology than pragmatic solutions. What about a more global effort? For all of our reductions in "carbon footprint," the third world is increasing theirs alarmingly (coincidentally as their populations also increase). This isn't a single-issue problem.

We can't make the sun stop flaring up and bombarding us with more energy (i.e., heat), but we should be dealing with the repercussions, as well as the human-induced exacerbation of the problem. Good luck finding those particular solutions.

Asimov had it right: Earth is too small a basket for humanity to put all its eggs in. Hmm. Yet we've (under Obama) relegated NASA to bumming rides with the Soviets or Chinese at $60 million a seat. And for those that cite the extraordinary cost of funding NASA, NASA's budget typically was/is only a half percent of the US budget. We spend far more on school lunch programs. Makes you wonder where our priorities are.

Neil Armstrong was a huge proponent of manned space exploration. I concur with him (and others): we need to be finding a way off this fragile and sometimes unstable rock we call home. Not to mention all the nifty spin-off technologies, not to mention empoloyment opportunities, that that would promulgate (why not create $100,000/yr jobs instead of $9/hr jobs, right?).

Nah. We'd rather spew ideologically-driven drivel (and attendant logical fallacies) than do something so proactive and productive as find real and meaninful solutions...

Brian, changes in the sun are NOT responsible for current heating. Not even close. Its fluctuations are only about 8% at most of what is needed to account for the heating we see now, and those fluctuations average to zero. The heating on earth has continued throughout all phases, both positive and negative, of several solar cycles. In fact, the warmest decade on record occurred while the sun was going through an exceptionally extended cool period. There was also some confusing data from an area near the Martian south pole that could have been mistaken for a warming trend, but that turned out to be due to the (dry-)ice cap sublimating and refreezing very asymmetrically. All in all, though, the data for other planets is exceptionally sparse -- far below anything you could use to make solid claims about heating or cooling trends beyond those deducible from their orbits, atmospheric compositions, etc.

And there is no evidence that Venus and Mars are warming. I don't know where you got that notion. There was an observation about 6 or 7 years ago that the temperature in one spot on Mars had increased between a single measurement in the 70's and another single measurement in the 90's. First, that is TWO(!) data points at single locations on a entire planet. Second, one of the measurements was affected by a planet-wide dust storm that had happened days before it was taken, making it wildly distorted. (Temperatures on Mars fluctuate day-to-day far more than they do on Earth, for several reasons including a thin atmosphere, enormous dust storms, etc.)

You raise a number of issues in one post, but for now, I'm trying to just comment on the science, since that offers the greatest likelihood of agreement based on facts. And I have no idea if you are doing it deliberately or not, but changing the subject and introducing dozens of tangental issues is a favorite debating strategy used by those who wish to avoid clear resolution of an issue when they feel their position is untenable. More progress is made if points are resolved one by one.

Bah. Edit of last post got garbled and I can't change it anymore -- last sentence of 1st paragraph should be last sentence of 2nd.

This is why conservatives believe nothing liberals say. We are #1 in wind energy, solar capacity is doubling year after year, the free market has replaced coal with nat gas, we'll have a dozen more electric vehicles next year to add to the dozen now available, we have been LOWERING our carbon footprint for years and people still post stupid comments.

Meanwhile, Canada is bulldozing their forests to strip mine the tar sands beneath, Brazil is clear cutting it's rain forest to plant ethanol crops, Spain is totally ignoring international fishing treaties, Japan is still hunting whales, China is firing up two coal fired plants a week and will do so for decades, and India is selling the cheapest car in the world for the masses while the whole of Africa are breeding like rabbits.

I'd expect nothing less from the blame America first liberals psyche.

Why hasn't Obamas green programs stopped this ice from melting? obama has been president for almost 4 years and this is the worst that the ice has been in the past 30 years?

Clearly obama has failed to stop the ice from melting with his green jobs initiative. its clear they don't work.

All the libs on here crying about the ice melting have done NOTHING to stop it from happening. all the libs on here are sitting in their homes using their a/c, driving their cars that burn fossil fuels, drink their coffee in styrofoam or paper cups and fill up landfills, use incandescent lightbulbs in their homes, have underinflated tires, using electricity to power their laptops and ipads from coal burning power plants.

Then these same people turn around and blame it on people like Rush Limbaugh.

LOL you are all HYPOCRITES!!!

Phil, Phil, Phil! Stop confusing the issue with facts! (lmao) and while you're at it, blame NASA for failing to prevent the sun from cranking out more energy lately. Hmf. Especially when we're dealing with an obviously human-caused global warming crisis! Jeez, the nerve of ol' Sol!

The jury's out on why Mars has been a tad warmer. Must be because we keep sending rovers there. Venus ... well, the jury is out on why exactly it's been warmer there, but we must have caused it with our greenhouse gas emissions somehow!

"China is firing up two coal fired plants a week and will do so for decades"

Actually China has doubled down on Nuclear power and will be building those instead of coal burning plants because they are more efficient, they are much much greener (granted they do produce radioactive material) produce more power for cheaper and above all of that they dont have to strip mine for coal.

The Brazilian government is not clearing rainforests to plant ethanol farms, they are actually paying rural farmers to let the forest creep into their land to increase the border of the forestland. Sattelite photos do show loggers are still illegally clearing patches of rainforest, but if you have some sort of evidence linking them to the Brazillian government I would love to see it.

While you are corrct about many of the other things the reason we as a nation are to blame is because we represent about 5% of the worlds population and about 30% of its pollutants, so we are producing far more than any other nation per capita. (yes China is the biggest polluter, but they also have 1/7 of the worlds population, so per capita its far less to what America produces).

Uh, no.

No need to become babbling imbeciles - yes, we're in trouble, but we need clear thinking and action, not hysteria.

Why hasn't Obamas green programs stopped this ice from melting? obama has been president for almost 4 years and this is the worst that the ice has been in the past 30 years?

Clearly obama has failed to stop the ice from melting with his green jobs initiative. its clear they don't work.

All the libs on here crying about the ice melting have done NOTHING to stop it from happening. all the libs on here are sitting in their homes using their a/c, driving their cars that burn fossil fuels, drink their coffee in styrofoam or paper cups and fill up landfills, use incandescent lightbulbs in their homes, have underinflated tires, using electricity to power their laptops and ipads from coal burning power plants.

Then these same people turn around and blame it on people like Rush Limbaugh.

LOL you are all HYPOCRITES!!!

won't be the food. it will be the water that will kill off most of the planet first. water is the next big commodity.

When the data supports you it's climate change, when it doesn't it "weather". Sorry lib, you can't have it both ways.

Why hasn't Obamas green programs stopped this ice from melting? obama has been president for almost 4 years and this is the worst that the ice has been in the past 30 years?

Clearly obama has failed to stop the ice from melting with his green jobs initiative. its clear they don't work.

All the libs on here crying about the ice melting have done NOTHING to stop it from happening. all the libs on here are sitting in their homes using their a/c, driving their cars that burn fossil fuels, drink their coffee in styrofoam or paper cups and fill up landfills, use incandescent lightbulbs in their homes, have underinflated tires, using electricity to power their laptops and ipads from coal burning power plants.

Then these same people turn around and blame it on people like Rush Limbaugh.

LOL you are all HYPOCRITES!!!

Got anything new to say, John?

Mr. haddock does seem to be pointlessly repetitive.

Hey city, Arctic ice is already displacing ocean water, so melting there does not cause sea level increases. However, next door, Greenland Ice is on land and as it melts oceans will rise. Same is true for mountain glaciers and more significantly Antarctica.

cityofangles ... no one has predicted submersion of Venice at this point (though I wouldn't advise buying property there to pass along to your grandkids as they may be disappointed). Sea levels are rising slowly, both through ice melt and thermal expansion. Maybe you missed those articles.

Also, as Bluecat said, Artic ice does (which is floating ice) not contribute to water level rise directly though it loss can contribute because of thermal expansion of the resultant warmer waters. (Ice reflects the sun's rays while darker seawater adsorbs it.)

Venice is also sinking, and have been for centuries. They are getting hit in both directions, some of the areas are flooded now during high tide.

valhalla phil, you have got to be the stupidest person alive.

The name-calling is uncalled for and in violation of the Newsvine CoH:

#1) Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.

Phil's post has the additional benefit of being correct.

Joan, that's great, but that's not what I said. I said that there aren't any non-Christian global warming skeptics. All the global warming skeptics seem to be fundamentalist Christians.

And another pathetic liberal lie. One has nothing to do with the other. Just another religion bashing liberal fascist.

Actually. Phil, they have a LOT to do with each other. Religious fundamentalists are far and away the most likely people to deny scientific results. Their mindset seems to be that of supporting their perceived authorities rather than looking at facts.

Actually. no. The maximum area is now down by about 8% from what it was 30 years ago, and the maximum volume is down by about 25%. The minimum area each year now is down by about 50% and the minimum volume is down by about 75%.

If the accelerating trends of the past 30 years continue (and there's no reason to expect otherwise), the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer within a decade (+/- 5 years) and could be ice-free IN THE WINTER by the end of this century.

According to the crews from Deadliest Catch, the ice came further south just this last winter than it has done in the last 30 years.

It can't be ice free in winter...the nights are too long and temps get too cold

Because, of course Wally, the crew from the Deadliest Catch has the most complete measurements of all Arctic sea ice, right? And to think they did it with just a fishing pole and a lead weight!

Why hasn't Obamas green programs stopped this ice from melting? obama has been president for almost 4 years and this is the worst that the ice has been in the past 30 years?

Clearly obama has failed to stop the ice from melting with his green jobs initiative. its clear they don't work.

All the libs on here crying about the ice melting have done NOTHING to stop it from happening. all the libs on here are sitting in their homes using their a/c, driving their cars that burn fossil fuels, drink their coffee in styrofoam or paper cups and fill up landfills, use incandescent lightbulbs in their homes, have underinflated tires, using electricity to power their laptops and ipads from coal burning power plants.

Then these same people turn around and blame it on people like Rush Limbaugh.

LOL you are all HYPOCRITES!!!

No Buster, it's about Science.

No blue, its a scare tactic designed to get us to believe 100% in science so they can waste more of our money on stupid thongs like this.

And how many solar panels do you own? What is in your driveway?

Richt, TC, because believing in science has been such a disastrous mistake for the past 300 years.

Buster is correct. this is all about control of wealth, resources, and population through fraud.

Barely a lick of real science is being used here.

Black and Gold 1513340 wrote:

Guess what Jim? The polar ice was even less in the early 1800s than it is now! How about that?! Maybe you should do some reading and research. Funny how these stories never mention the glaciers that are actually GROWING but then that wouldn't be expedient to their political motives, now, would it?

Can you substantiate that with any data at all. A cursory search of published data indicated the opposite. Saying something over and over does not make it true...

Rob, Your FULL OF CRAP. The Poles were not explored at all in early 1800s and there was surely not less ice in the later part of the 1800s. In 1904, Amundsey with a small both took 3 years to go accross the northwest passage, going from lead to lead.

This is all part of a natural cycle, right? Sure. You betcha.

chirsatpsu, you're a real piece of work.

Hey Jack,

Ice core analysis has proven that the glaciers have melted in similar fashion to today's melting, without a single human being present on the planet. Yet, the glaciers have returned, and repeated the cycle, several times.

Kinda hard to ignore that isn't it?

Jack you need to go back to the 1800's when the same thing happened. It is natural and has happened long before we ever thought of driving cars or building industries. Its people like you that keep this garbage going. You're willing to believe everything you hear without finding out that it has happened before.

I have seen pictures of the S pole and they where taken out of a jet. So let me see how here wants to stand behind a jet engine raise your hand?? How many miles has Obama and crew put on in his bid for reelection hauling his buses and suv's around??

Wrong. The ice receded up until about 6,000 years ago, but then stabilized. So ALL of human civilization developed in essentially one climate pattern. Now we are doing an uncontrolled experiment to change that climate. Not smart.

Phil, the natural patterns you refer to would currently have us in a cooling pattern. Instead the globe is warming.

That's impossible to ignore unless you are willfully ignorant.

Let....me....try....to....explain....this.....to.....you......slowly.

There....is......no...natural...phenomenon....that....explains.....the....current.....rate....of....global.....temperature....rise.

Except.....the......increase......in....greenhouse....gas.......levels.....in....the.....atmosphere.

Aw, forget it - go read it for yourself:

The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

Why hasn't Obamas green programs stopped this ice from melting? obama has been president for almost 4 years and this is the worst that the ice has been in the past 30 years?

Clearly obama has failed to stop the ice from melting with his green jobs initiative. its clear they don't work.

All the libs on here crying about the ice melting have done NOTHING to stop it from happening. all the libs on here are sitting in their homes using their a/c, driving their cars that burn fossil fuels, drink their coffee in styrofoam or paper cups and fill up landfills, use incandescent lightbulbs in their homes, have underinflated tires, using electricity to power their laptops and ipads from coal burning power plants.

Then these same people turn around and blame it on people like Rush Limbaugh.