Friday, September 21, 2007


More Global Warming Mindset

Proof that once you're in a particular mindset, no amount of contrary facts can dissuade you, is contained in these two stories on the so called experts' opinions regarding global warming. They both center on the sea ice melt in the Arctic Ocean which occurs every year at the end of Summer (which is exactly now). This year, there is more sea ice melt than the average. But, of course, that's why they call it an average and not 'the expected' or 'the normal', although the so called experts are treating it exactly like there is a set amount of sea ice melt in the Arctic each summer without variation. There has only been satellite ice imaging since 1979. Less than 30 years of measurement is not sufficient data from which to be able to discern a climatological trend. Anything else than satellite measurement is necessarily based on anecdote. Regardless of the lack of knowledge, Chicken Little is shouting, however, and loudly. I like it when the Warmies tell us their bold predictions of things that will happen soon. Like the hurricane expert who said that in the year after hurricane Katrina (2006) there would be more and more powerful Atlantic hurricanes probably to hit the US. There were none in 2006--not just less, NONE. Please Warmies, tell me exactly what will happen to the Arctic sea ice over the next twelve months. Please.

But back to the aforementioned stories.

The New York Times coverage is actually pretty funny. Here are the last few sentences of a story that stated flat out the sea ice melt was a result of man made global warming:

...“We’re starting to see the system respond to global warming.”

Still, he and other scientists acknowledged that both poles were extraordinarily complicated systems of ice, water and land, and that the mix of human and natural influences was not easy to clarify.

Sea ice around Antarctica has seen unusual winter expansions recently, and this week is near a record high
That last sentence is actually not factual, the Antarctic sea ice at the end of the Southern Hemisphere's Winter is at a record high, at least since satellite measurements have been recorded.*

Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that: Two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will disappear by 2050, even under moderate projections for shrinking summer sea ice caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

All of the bears in Alaska will be dead by that time, said the experts.

But as Paul at Wizbang points out, someone forgot to tell the bears.

In Nunavut, Canada's newest territory way up north, where there are 12 of the 13 Canadian populations of polar bears, so far this year there are many many more than they counted last year.

Last year 841 polar bears were counted in the survey area and halfway through this year's survey, approximately 600 have been counted. Taylor estimates that this year's number could be as high as 1,000.

The total of Canada's bears are estimated at 15,000.

The estimated head count of polar bears in the world varies between 22,000 and 35,000. In 1950, there were only 5,000.

To be fair, where the polar bears numbers are continuing to expand is near where the NYT's sad story predicting their near decline said they would always survive.
UPDATE: Here's what the NYT reported about the sea ice melt: ...several ice experts who have studied Russian and Alaskan records going back many decades said the ice retreat this year was probably unmatched in the 20th century. (Emphasis added).
Well perhaps those experts ought to read a little history, like of Roald Amundsen's sailing through the Northwest Passage beginning in 1903. Had he not stopped to look for the magnetic north pole, he could have sailed from the North Atlantic to the Bearing Sea in just a few weeks because the way was 100% ice free, just as the 'experts' are marveling at now and calling unprecedented. I could be mistaken but I think 1903 was actually in the the 20th century.
UPDATE II: *My source for the amount of sea ice surrounding Antarctica has backed off its statement based, it said, on a 'glitch' in the computer program it used. Apparently a few weeks ago, there were 15.91 million square miles of sea ice and the record maximum since 1979 is 16.03. I stand corrected.


"In 1950, there were only 5,000."

Do you read the articles you link to? Here's what the guy said:

"At the end of the day, the sea ice is disappearing. Take away the habitat and the species follows shortly thereafter (or before).

Comparing declines caused by harvest followed by recovery from harvest controls to declines from loss of habitat and climate warming are apples and oranges. Ignorant people write ignorant things."

Did you forget that in 2006, the Atlantic storm season was less severe b/c dust clouds from Africa blocked sunlight and prevented ocean warming?

Pb,I quoted the guy to show the mindset. Thanks for not noticing. He has the numbers but he misses the point. The numbers have been doubling every other decade precisely when you Warmies say the warming should be causing a decline. And the numbers are still increasing. No amount of counter evidence will cause you Warmies to doubt your beliefs. You are further proof.
Tony, That's what they say now because they have more information. They will have to say similar things when their oh so dire predictions are shown the bunk they are. I hate really hot weather, I love the crisp cold of Winter, but I think warming is so much better than getting colder for the majority of Earth's population. So even if true, GW is a good thing (within reason).
I know you're into labels, but how can you label me or talk about my beliefs on the enviornment when I don't think I've ever addresseed the subject here.

In any event, citing an article for the use of a statistic, when the article clearly explains how such statistic is meaningless, is not going to convince anyone of the merits of your argument. Better stick to labels.
OK, good idea. You're a shallow thinker. The article did not explain why the statistics it contained were meaningless. It's the mindset that ascribes meaninglessness to real facts. Again the principle I was writing about is reinforced. Haven't you commented on a global warming article before?
Fire and Ice

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say ice.
But from what I've tasted of desire,
I hold with those who favor fire.

But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate,
To know that for destruction ice is also great,
And would suffice.

Robert Frost
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?