Science Marches On
Despite the denial of global warming skeptics, Arctic sea ice is now at the lowest level than at any time in recorded history:
“The current reduction in Arctic ice cover started in the late 19th century, consistent with the rapidly warming climate, and became very pronounced over the last three decades. This ice loss appears to be unmatched over at least the last few thousand years and unexplainable by any of the known natural variabilities.” – “History of sea ice in the Arctic” Quarternary Science Reviews 2010
Join us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
June 19th, 2010 at 10:34 am
OK, I am not a global warming skeptic. I am also willing to accept the opinion of our best scientific minds that almost unanimously accept greenhouse gasses at a minimum contribute to global warming.
But what about the sun? Can it be accepted that perhaps output from the sun might potentially have some impact? How come every time a scientist attempts to introduce such explanations they are shouted down by the cacophony that just accuse them of being global warming (due to green house gasses) deniers? When is room going to be there in science for the alternative voice to be considered and not derisively dismissed?
Our sun is not a completely stable source of energy that does not change with time. In the end, as I understand it, our sun will eventually become a red giant and encompass and vaporize our little blue planet. Is it wrong, from a scientific point of view, to exclude solar energy inputs into what happens on our planet?
I will note that scientists are noting that there are changes going on with our sun that can not be explained with our current level of knowledge. The sure and certain 11 year sunspot cycle seems to be heading outside the areas of expectation. If the sun is not part of the explanation then why are the polar CO2 ice caps on Mars melting at the same time planet Earth seems to be facing similar challenges?
June 21st, 2010 at 4:08 am
Climate scientists are fully aware of the sun and have taken into account solar variations. It has been fully accepted that output from the sun has an impact. Scientists acknowledge the effects of solar and other natural variations, but these have been overwhelmed by the effects of man-made of greenhouse gasses.
In science, alternative voices are not “shouted down” or “derisively dismissed.” They are peer-reviewed and either supported or unsupported by the evidence.
The sun has actually been in a cooling phase over the past 35 years, sunspots have also declined in recent years, and there is no correlation between solar variations and global warming.
June 23rd, 2010 at 11:31 am
UPDATE: Comprehensive reviews of peer-reviewed scientific literature by Science magazine in 2004 and a report released yesterday by the National Academy of Sciences confirm that 97%-98% of climate scientists agree that human activity is driving climate change.
June 25th, 2010 at 10:39 pm
I noted that my previous comment that included a few links is not there.
I do not think this is due to censorship, only poor editorializing due to software. You almost seem to be responding to the arguments I provided with links I provided without allowing anyone else to view the counter argument. You get to see them but none others. I think the argument I provided with links previously counters your argument very substantially.
You like science? How many physicists agreed with Albert Einstein’s wild ideas before his wild ideas were proven correct?
July 8th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
[...] Science Marches On [...]
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:20 am
UPDATE: A new report from NOAA: “Global warming is undeniable” and it’s happening fast.
August 9th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
UPDATE: A piece of ice four times the size of Manhattan island has broken away from an ice shelf in Greenland.
August 9th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Ice breaks away every summer. Last time the Global Warming crowd went to the South Pole , they left disappointed because there was nothing that would fit their agenda. The polar bears are increasing in numbers.
August 9th, 2010 at 1:25 pm
As for your “peer reviews” it is widely known that reviews are only invited from those who agree these days. The scientific crowd seem to be making up truths as much as the Dems these days; but of course they are all part of the same team! If you don’t agree it is impossible to obtain research grants, so they now have to claim the research is something to do with Global Warming.
August 10th, 2010 at 4:32 am
Molly: FYI, polar bears are only in the north Arctic, not the South Pole, so scientists would have been astounded to discover polar bears there. Two studied populations are increasing (due to protection from hunting) but others are declining (due to the continuing loss of sea ice). They are also facing increasing competition by the more aggressive grizzly bears who are now venturing further north.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and decades of peer-reviewed scientific research v. “Molly.”
January 13th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
UPDATE: According to NOAA scientists, 2010 tied (with 2005) as the warmest year on record since 1880 and was also the wettest year on record. It was the 34th consecutive year with global temperatures above the 20th century average.
The opposing argument: Thermometers are liberally-biased. Also, it snows in winter.
January 13th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
David,
From the link you provided:
“For the contiguous United States alone, the 2010 average annual temperature was above normal, resulting in the 23rd warmest year on record.”
23rd warmest in the relatively short time records have been being kept is not much of a record.
It is hard to tell your average citizen there is global warming when they are experiencing more snowfall in the last couple years then ever before in their lifetime. What I am experiencing time and again are comments like: “That fool Al Gore says there is global warming.”
I believe I pointed out a couple years ago that a scientist had made the prediction that land areas alongside the north Altlantic would be experiencing cooler weather due to cyclic changes in ocean currents. I can’t claim credit for the prediction, all of that credit belongs to the scientist. However I will claim credit for having enough of an open mind to listen to what he said.
He was almost universally dismissed as being a global warming denier. I felt his pain. I too heard such accusations for even bringing up his ideas.
Another point that scientist attempted to make before he was drowned out is that if it was going to happen, it was best to explain it before it happened instead of attempting to try and explain it after the fact. He predicted that such a prediction, we would have to deal with increased public skepticism. I score him correct on two out of two thus far.
I wish I could identify that scientist by name, as I think his opinion could be valuable as we attempt to deal with climate change. If no one else would listen to him, I would be all ears.
January 15th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
LittleDavid: That’s why they call it “global warming,” not “U.S. warming.” Climate change is global and long term. Weather is local and short term. However, global warming does affect things like ocean currents, wind currents, and weather patterns. According to the article I linked to:
Increased snow in some areas was predicted by the global warming models.
Why is it that skeptics ignore the 97%-98% of scientists who support the conclusion that human activity is contributing to global warming while touting the 2%-3% of scientists with alternate theories?
January 15th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
David,
Here is an example of the prediction:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/90day/fxus05.html
Due to La Nina, the jet stream was supposed to stay north.
Science is an inexact science.
January 16th, 2011 at 7:23 am
Nothing you are referring to contradicts global warming science. As I said before, climate change is global and long term; weather is local and short term. El Niño is a naturally-occurring cycle that affects our weather over five year intervals.
Global warming may also influence wind patterns and ocean currents which affect the weather. For example, warmer water in the Atlantic means more moisture in the atmosphere, which can result in more precipitation (including snow).
In fact, we are both citing the same source. The link you provided was to David Unger at NOAA:
His weather predictions actually support global warming science; they don’t refute it.
January 16th, 2011 at 3:49 pm
Last year was El Nino, this year is supposed to be La Nina. The jet stream was supposed to stay up north and we weren’t supposed to have all the winter weather (snow) way down south. That was the prediction and already the south has seen record breaking amounts of snow in some areas.
That is the only point I was trying to make. Actually I am disappointed that thus far this winter the NOAA forecast has been so wrong. I really hate winter driving and I got my hopes up that we would not see as much bad driving conditions this year. When the snow and ice happens down south it is particularly treacherous since southern states do not have the equipment necessary to deal with it.
Here’s a line you might often hear on the CB: “Southbound, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the snow is flying down in (insert name of southern state here) and you know their idea of snow removal is sunshine.”
February 2nd, 2011 at 11:26 am
UPDATE: According to a new study, the Arctic Ocean is warmer today than at any time in the past 2,000 years.
May 13th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
UPDATE: Once again, “the nation’s scientific establishment issued a stark warning to the American public on Thursday: Not only is global warming real, but the effects are already becoming serious and the need has become ‘pressing’ for a strong national policy to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases.”
October 25th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
UPDATE: Richard Muller, University of California-Berkeley physicist (and former climate skeptic funded by the Koch brothers), just published the most comprehensive independent study which verifies previous findings of global warming.