Your link does not support your statement (thickness, no data for 2008). Please try again. I do read your reply as you acknowledging your first error though (extent).
... and here's the rebuttal. You seem to believe this is done and over with - it's not. There's no "concensus", and anyone who claims that "science" has "proven" AGW completely fails to understand what science is about.
Other planets have nothing to do with the argument. Increased solar output could well account for the warming there (small) - clouds and cosmic rays would then cause a greater change here (which is what you were asking for).
I'd like to see that recent evidence btw. As for hotly debated - good. I'd hate to see more of those 2000 secretaries signing a censored IPCC report being called "concensus".
... and the PDO warm phase and strong solar cycles can well account for any warming the last 30 years - including the El Nino induced really warm 1998. What's your point?
Climate change is now occuring over years to decades, hundreds of times faster than it ever has before
No - why would you claim such a thing?
(You do know that we're currently at pre-1998 levels of global temperature - even though we also know that how we measure temperature seems deeply flawed?)
Yet today even the most conservative of scientists are predicting it will be ice free by mid-century and moderates are predicting "within a decade".
Absolutely not. 2008 has more ice than 2007, and since several other cycles (solar and ocean currents) have shifted towards cool phases the build up of ice is likely going to continue.
Of course it turns out that we CAN measure the effects of the solar cycle, and they aren't nearly enough to account for the changes in temperature on Earth
It seems you're getting all your science from one place. Try others. Svensmark's theory is getting more and more support (old article):
Andy Watts has a few old news paper clips on his blog about the north west passage being traversable several times before this century. The situation in the arctic right now is not unusual at all.
Agreed. I was very surprised by some of the statements around Android in the latest update (linked above) since they're either extremely biased or simply based on incomplete knowledge.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
(No misinformation, feel free to correct the BBC article if you want)
I fail to see your argument. At which point is it ok - according to you - to say that a trend has ended?
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/even-doubling-or-tripling-the-amount-of-co2-will-have-little-impact-on-temps/
(Have you even researched the number of relevant scientists openly disagreeing with the IPCC reports? You should)
Your link does not support your statement (thickness, no data for 2008). Please try again. I do read your reply as you acknowledging your first error though (extent).
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
And what should be so special about 4-5000 years? That's nothing.
(Also, we simply haven't got that much knowledge on what has happened before. Serious mapping started out in the last few decades!)
Dude, I read the FA. Apparently you need to think about that "nearly" word you quoted again.
(You also fail to understand who says what in the link I gave)
... and here's the rebuttal. You seem to believe this is done and over with - it's not. There's no "concensus", and anyone who claims that "science" has "proven" AGW completely fails to understand what science is about.
http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/scientific-report-series/Scient_No._3.pdf/view
Other planets have nothing to do with the argument. Increased solar output could well account for the warming there (small) - clouds and cosmic rays would then cause a greater change here (which is what you were asking for).
I'd like to see that recent evidence btw. As for hotly debated - good. I'd hate to see more of those 2000 secretaries signing a censored IPCC report being called "concensus".
Why should the Arctic be turning slushy now, rather than 1000 years into the past or the future?
Why are you under the impression that it hasn't been "slushy" before? We actually know it has - several times during the last centuries even.
... and the PDO warm phase and strong solar cycles can well account for any warming the last 30 years - including the El Nino induced really warm 1998. What's your point?
Climate change is now occuring over years to decades, hundreds of times faster than it ever has before
No - why would you claim such a thing?
(You do know that we're currently at pre-1998 levels of global temperature - even though we also know that how we measure temperature seems deeply flawed?)
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/arctic-ice-extent-discrepancy-nsidc-versus-cryosphere-today/
Umm. There's more ice in the arctic this year than last year.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/arctic-ice-extent-discrepancy-nsidc-versus-cryosphere-today/
Because the 11 (22 really) year cycle is not the only one? Because solar output influences other cycles (ocean currents) on the earth as well?
Yet today even the most conservative of scientists are predicting it will be ice free by mid-century and moderates are predicting "within a decade".
Absolutely not. 2008 has more ice than 2007, and since several other cycles (solar and ocean currents) have shifted towards cool phases the build up of ice is likely going to continue.
What's "unnatural" about CO2? It's called plant food - and our biosphere is currently gobbling it up nicely.
Of course it turns out that we CAN measure the effects of the solar cycle, and they aren't nearly enough to account for the changes in temperature on Earth
It seems you're getting all your science from one place. Try others. Svensmark's theory is getting more and more support (old article):
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-discover-interview-henrik-svensmark
You say "greenhouse pollution" - I say "plant food".
Why? (And please include the PDO in your answer)
Andy Watts has a few old news paper clips on his blog about the north west passage being traversable several times before this century. The situation in the arctic right now is not unusual at all.
No, on the contrary. Small "sunspecks" cannot be seen without modern equipment and thus do not exist in the earlier records.
You do know that it was Georgia, using Israeli weapons and old planes from Russia, that bombed their own citizens ... ?
I'm not joking. This has somewhat hit mainstream media, depending on country.
Where in the world *isn't* there a natural disaster waiting to happen
Some parts of northern Europe, at least. It's actually a bit boring.
(Every now and then there's a storm that brings down a few trees. We do call those "disasters")
You need to go read up on something called "Scandinavia" ...
Agreed. I was very surprised by some of the statements around Android in the latest update (linked above) since they're either extremely biased or simply based on incomplete knowledge.
Not what I expected. Too bad.