‘In the Great Ship Titanic’

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 04/16/2009 2:56:21 PM

    The ice percentage information provided below is from the NSIDC and it is accurate. In case you can't figure it out there is essentially 23% more ice in the Antartic Sea in 2009 then there was in 1980. Total sea ice is up in 2008 compared to 1979 in every month except September where it broke even. No hiiden agenda here this is not from a partisian organization and NSIDC is reporting the facts. The global warming fallacy continues....

    • Posted By: DieselAddict @ 04/16/2009 5:15:01 PM

      It's pretty obvious you have an agenda. Here's NASA's take on Antarctic sea ice:

      "A new NASA-funded study finds that predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic???s Southern Ocean. This adds new evidence of potential asymmetry between the two poles, and may be an indication that climate change processes may have different impact on different areas of the globe."
      http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/sea_ice.html

      It makes sense. Even with the warmer temperatures in Antarctica, it's still below freezing and thus cold enough for snow and ice formation. But the warmer air naturally increases precipitation, hence we get more ice (until it gets so warm that the ice starts melting).

    • Posted By: KennyF @ 04/16/2009 3:16:30 PM

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 04/16/2009 1:53:31 PM

    Antarctic Sea Ice for January

    Extent Concentration2009 5.8 million sq km 3.3 million sq km1997 4.3 million sq km 2.7 million sq km1980 4.7 million sq km 3.0 million sq kmThis is an increase of 34.8% for ice extent and 22% for ice concentration over 1997. In addition 2009 ice extent was up 23% over 1980 (the first full year of satellite measurements)! This of course continues a long trend.

    Sea Ice Concentration - percentage greater in 2008 than 1979:

    January - 14.7% February - 15.0% March - 34.6% April - 13.0% May - 3.7% June - 1.0% July - (-3%) August ??? 1.5% September - equal October - 2.2% November ??? 4.5% December - 18.3%Interior ice is also increasing but not due to warming. According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1°F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004. All the while global CO2 levels have gone up and the main stream media has been reporting near catastrophic warming conditions. They regularly show Antarctic sea ice shelves breaking apart, which is an entirely normal process (though they never tell you that part). The main stream media and certain segments of the scientific community truly must have no shame.

    NOTE: This story was updated on 2/9/2009 to reflect an error in the years used. The numbers should be right now. You can run the numbers yourself at NSIDC.

  • Posted By: rho1953 @ 04/15/2009 6:24:10 PM

    There is so much contradictory evidence. The people who believe in this don't talk about that, they are selling a product and salesmen never talk down their product. Ask yourselves this: why don't many countries buy into this? Canada, Russia,China,India and Japan all reject the theory. Japan is an island country that would be the most affected but they have concluded it is natural cycling and efforts to counter it won't work. We shouldn't be destroying industry and our lifestyles to chase a phantom. It IS relevant what the winter is in the northern climes. You tried scare-mongering five years ago, telling us the winter weather in Minnesota would be much warmer. That didn't happen. Nothing you predicted has happened as you said it would. Now you simply ratchet up the rhetoric to try and sway the argument. At some point your predictions have to come true. You can't get away with endlessly warning that SOMEDAY it really is going to happen. You want to re-order society to fit YOUR ideal and any tactic is acceptable. I reject that totally.

    • Posted By: stholas @ 04/16/2009 12:44:34 PM

      Utter nonsense. Please do your research before you post such irresponsible nonsense. Who's feeding you these talking points?

      • Posted By: John Dough @ 04/16/2009 1:42:54 PM

        See the non-partisan website Globalwarminghoax.com and you will learn the real truth behind this false science.

  • Posted By: John Dough @ 04/16/2009 1:41:36 PM

    Global Warming is a Fallacy. The real purpose of this suppossed threat is to re-distruibute the wealth of Western Nations to poorer countries using global warming threats to scare people into "greening" their lives and country. These are excerpts from the U.N. proposal that Obama and Chu support.

    Here are a few of the measures being considered:
    Carbon Taxes or Levies - A carbon tax will drive up the costs of nearly all goods and services

    Subsidies - "Clean energy" companies will be subsidized as they can not compete in the market place.

    Cap-and-Trade - Basically a tax on business and industry. All costs end up being passed on to consumers

    Import Tariffs - These tariffs are being proposed to "protect" "environmentally sound goods" from those that cost less.

    Standards and Labelling Requirements - Any goods that are imported or exported will be required to have standardized UN approved labels. Again, this drives up the cost of goods.

    Border Carbon Adjustment - If a country isn't playing by the UN's rules their goods will be taxed by an amount that makes them competitive with goods that are produced in carbon friendly countries.

    International Carbon Taxes on Aviation and Maritime Transport - The cost that European vacation will skyrocket once the ticket is adjusted for amount of carbon released.

    International Cap and Trade - "International relocation of industry", move industry from western countries to those that currently have little industry (and thus produce less carbon). Since the overall amount of carbon released is the same we can only conclude that this is a ploy to reallocate wealth from richer countries to poorer.

    International Offsets - this isn't explained, we can only assume it means either more taxes or some form of wealth transfer

    Technology Cooperation - It is well known that the UN would like to end patent protection on any invention or process that benefits poorer countries. Essentially stealing all of the money and work invested in research and development by western companies.

    Subsidy reform "Consumer subsidies" - Wealth transfer from richer countries to poorer one's so that they can afford the more expensive, but greener, goods and services that will result from the treaties being proposed.

  • Posted By: edmundmadaj @ 04/16/2009 1:06:08 PM

    I'm too old to be around when things get really bad and I don't have children. Why should I care?

    • Posted By: edmundmadaj @ 04/16/2009 1:18:48 PM

      By the way, that was sarcasm. I posted it because I'm sure there are plenty of people in this world who could say it and mean it, but are too (rightfully) embarrassed. No point in their voice not being heard. After all, that, and not the science, may just be the real issue.

  • Posted By: Arbiter @ 04/15/2009 10:24:11 PM

    In my deepest heart I hope these predictions are wrong, but if they are not, then I am truly sorry for the generations that will come after me. In the end no matter what side of the fence you are on global warming, you can certainly agree that the human race have not been a good caretaker of this planet.

  • Posted By: DieselAddict @ 04/15/2009 8:01:03 PM

    Canada, Russia and Japan all signed the Kyoto protocol. And China and India now do accept the theory that humans are contributing to climate change. Where do you get your info??

    And as to MN winters, I remember a couple years ago or so you had a snow-free Christmas which is supposedly unusual, but again local weather isn't very relevant.

    Do yourself a favor and do your own research. No one's trying to sell you anything and no one cares what you reject or accept.

  • Posted By: Greg the Third @ 04/15/2009 1:51:46 AM

    This article is a little short on details but has the right overall persepctive. It is quite a shame and somewhat amazing how poorly we have developed our energy grid. Equating it to 1950's development is probably chronologically accurate as to when the last time it was modernized. One elephant in the room not discussed is how government subsidies must be diverted from oil and dirty coal to clean and renewable produiction systems. Geothermal is a great example of how with minimal subsidies half the homes in the nation (west and mountain especially) can be heated and powered up by a clean and renewable energy source in a very similar fashion as to how they get their water. The technology exists and only needs subsidies to be mass produced which would further lower its cost for installment. Once there are billions to be made big oil companies would be wise to become big energy companies in order to offer these services. The government needs to take the lead rather be led to stagnation by entrenched interests making more profit off the status quo while the future welfare of the nation is in jeapordy. Nuclear power should only be seen as a stopgap until solar renewables become more energy efficient as the toxic waste still cannot be detoxified or recycled and has to be dumped also potentially to the detriment of future generations. Power generation by fusion reactors is still a long way off but it would be comforting to hear the governemnt endorse the continued progress (albeit slow) of fusion projects rather than possibly pulling the financial plug on it in the future. I would also be comforted by a categorical refutation of the "drill baby drill" mantra. Ironically by drilling in the right place, the shale oil deposits of Colrado-Utah, we do have the ability to access a trillion barrels of oil reserves with fairly new technology. Sadly to say even dirty coal doesn't surpass oil burning's rate of acceleration of global warming as there is mounting evidence that particulate smog such as sulfates from coal burning helped dampen global warming and clean air acts actually unintentionally accelerated global warming since the 1970s. So unfortunately even though we now have access to three times the Saudi oil reserves on our own soil, despite the fact Congress has still inexpicably banned drilling there, we should not use it as it would worsen the global warming phenomenon. Lastly, I would like to hear some insight and consideration of methods to counteract global warming, a topic actively being discussed, and something dirty coal burning seemed to be doing despie its detrimental health effects in the past.

    • Posted By: Boomer7 @ 04/15/2009 4:20:15 PM

      What is the real ele.phant in the room? Not energy production, but energy use. As energy demands increase with the growing population, regardless of the source, the earth will continue to warm. The charts Al Gore used in his lectures compared global temperature with carbon dioxide levels. What seemed more accurate was the correlation of growing temperature with growing population. If I turn on my fan, the motor produces heat. It does not matter if the energy source was from hydrocarbons, nuclear, solar, or wind. Humans use energy, energy use produces heat. The earth will warm. All of the rest is just bickering over what tune the band will play on this "Titanic."

    • Posted By: Boomer7 @ 04/15/2009 4:17:58 PM

      What is the real ele.phant in the room? Not energy production, but energy use. As energy demands increase with the growing population, regardless of the source, the earth will continue to warm. The charts Al Gore used in his lectures compared global temperature with carbon dioxide levels. What seemed more accurate was the correlation of growing temperature with growing population. If I turn on my fan, the motor produces heat. It does not matter if the energy source was from hydrocarbons, nuclear, solar, or wind. Humans use energy, energy use produces heat. The earth will warm. All of the rest is just bickering over what tune the band will play on this "Titanic."

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse