Archive for the ‘Ice’ Category

Thriving polar bears a sign of…global warmingMay 13th, 2009 by The WeGetIt.org Team

If you listened carefully to a National Public Radio report on polar bears yesterday, you might have noticed a little inconsistency. A report said that polar bears are threatened because global warming is causing declining Arctic sea ice (from which bears hunt for seals). But it also said that the bears are “in good shape now” and mentioned one, a healthy bear of record weight, that a researcher described as “a very fat bear for this time of the year . . . his belly almost scraped the ground, so he was a really fat good-looking bear.”

 
   

If you’re wondering how thriving bears and declining Arctic sea ice threatening their extinction could go hand-in-hand, you’re thinking straight. Shrinking sea ice and fattening bears aren’t supposed to go together.

Part of the explanation is that Arctic sea ice, which hit its lowest summer extent in 2007, has recovered greatly since then, now nearing the 1979-2000 mean. Its smallest March extent since 1979 e.g., in 2006, was 8.4% below the mean, but this year’s March extent was only 3.75% below.

The notion that Arctic sea ice shrinkage has been caused by global warming is also suspect, for during the years of most rapid shrinkage, Earth was actually cooling rapidly. No wonder “a paper by NASA in 2008 attributed this ice-melt” not to global or even regional warming but “to unusual northbound currents and winds bringing warmth up from the tropics to the Arctic, and a more recent paper says that the summertime Polar winds in 2007/8 had blown much of the sea ice southward into warmer waters, where it melted.”

Finally, Arctic temperatures were warmer in the 1930s and 1940s than since 1979, and ice extent shrank as much or more then (with the Northwest Passage opening several times to shipping), but the polar bears survived. They also survived when there was much less ice 6,000 to 7,000 years ago. And their number seems to have been growing , not shrinking, in recent years.

It’s official: You’re a dangerous polluter!April 22nd, 2009 by The WeGetIt.org Team

Despite declining public support for global warming alarmism, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ruled that greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide) are pollution and endanger human health and welfare. If that were true, then every time you exhale you’d be emitting CO2 and would be endangering yourself and everyone else on Earth.

For a little sanity on the subject, we turn to a climatologist, former NASA scientist, and WeGetIt.org supporter, Dr. Roy W. Spencer, who posted some information Monday that puts things in perspective. Some abbreviated samples:

  • Is global warming happening now? No one knows because of year-to-year climate fluctuations, but temperatures stopped rising in 2001 and may be entering a significant cooling trend.
  • Is it warmer now than in thousands of years? No–and it was probably significantly warmer in the Medieval Warm Period.
  • Does declining Arctic sea ice evidence manmade global warming? Warming, yes; manmade, no, and recent trends are not significantly different from those of the 1930s.
  • Is Arctic sea ice melt rate increasing? No.
  • Is Antarctic sea ice diminishing? No.
  • Is CO2 a dangerous gas? “Well, if you breathe pure CO2, you will die–from a lack of oxygen, not because CO2 is poisonous. But if you breathe pure oxygen for very long, that will also kill you. Carbon dioxide is necessary for life on Earth; photosynthesis by plants on land and by plankton in the ocean depend on it. And without these forms of life, all the animals (and we humans) would die as well.”
  • How much has CO2 risen as a percentage of the atmosphere since 1958? Not much:

mauna-loa-co2-1-percent-scale

        That’s right, from a little under 1/2 of 1/10 of 1% to a little over 1/2 of 1/10 of 1%.

  • Is CO2 the main greenhouse gas? No, it’s about 3% of the greenhouse effect; water vapor (85% to 90%) and clouds (5% to 10%) outweigh it by far.
  • How much warming would doubled CO2 cause? Not more than 1 degree Centigrade (1/3 the central estimate of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which depends on computer models that wrongly count clouds as a positive feedback; Spencer’s satellite data show they’re negative).

What has caused the roughly 1 degree of warming in about the last century? Not CO2, since it hasn’t nearly doubled. Probably instead natural cycles, especially cloud responses to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

The deception of disaster-driven headlinesFebruary 25th, 2009 by E. Calvin Beisner
  A California-sized mistake
 

Sea ice was understated by an area the size of California. 
Click for a larger, updated graph.

The Apostle Paul’s admonition to “test all things; hold fast what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21) applies to many “breaking news” claims of just-discovered ecological disaster. Again and again, further analysis finds poor data, poor interpretations of data, and sometimes outright fraud. Among the most famous examples is the now discredited ”Hockey Stick” graph of temperatures over the last 2000 years, which falsely eliminate the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age and gave the appearance of sudden, abnormal warming in the last century. (You may recall seeing a version of it in An Inconvenient Truth–remember Al Gore on a lift, rising impossibly high above the stage?)

Two other examples just occurred. First, data behind the claims that Arctic sea ice extent was abnormally low in the last few months were mistaken because of satellite drift, causing a computer program to understate ice extent by an area the size of California. In the chart above, the red line shows the accurate reading, the blue the reading based on the faulty data.

Second, Gore is being forced to pull a slide from his presentation, one that purports to show a correlation between global warming and current disasters like the Australian wildfires. Earlier this month, Mr. Gore found himself contradicted by the researchers on whose data he had relied. According to the authors of the report, “justifying the upward trend in hydro-meteorological disaster occurrence and impacts essentially through climate change would be misleading.”

So, the next time you see a dooms-day global warming headline, keep in mind that climate science is still young. Christian prudence suggests that we ought to “be cautious of claims that our planet is in peril from speculative dangers.”