Does a 'Global' Temperature exist?

[King Edward]

Originally Posted by Dorts

According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. And suggested that summer 2010 will have even more ice retained. This has now been confirmed.

You're clutching at straws here, confusing short-term month to month and year to year variability with longer term trends. See this graph, for instance - NSDIC - Arctic Sea Ice Extent - and explain how it supports your earlier contention that ice levels are now "almost back to normal".

I asked you to link to some predictions of imminent global cooling from climate scientists. Instead, you supplied a short list of surnames including an oil industry consultant and a dead astrologer. Not very convincing. I'm still interested to hear you explain those, especially the second.

In your latest post, you link to a blog post by someone (Girma Orssengo) whose list of scientific publications includes several on contact lenses and one titled "Mechanical properties of brain tissue in-vivo: experiment and computer simulation". Please could you enlighten me on how this qualifies him as a climatologist.

And regarding your sunspot link, it actually quotes the NASA scientist (David Hathaway) as predicting a decline in sunspot numbers, NOT global temperature. There is a difference.

[Dorts]

K.E., following your reasearch have you found Arctic sea-ice is at the moment increasing or decreasing. Do you agree that over any given period of time the area of sea-ice will increase and decrease?
It has been shown that the Northern sea passages were open for a period of over 1,000 years between 6,000 - 8,500 years ago. Again at times from 1000 and 1300 AD. From 1903–1906, in 1932 and again in 2007-2009? Several fortified ships completed the journey at other times during the 1900's, showing that the recent ice- free passages are nothing new. Of course many of these recent ice-free periods were very short, sometimes just a few days.

Along with overall area of ice, the frozen area of the Arctic sea-ice does move around due to various factors. So that at any time some areas free of ice appear to become frozen and vice versa, though the overall area of ice stays fairly constant.

It takes very little melting or movement of this ice for a free passage to become available. So it's not simply a question of does it happen. But is it evidence of something serious? Is the recent free passage any different to previous times?
I don't believe it has been shown to be anything but normal. Of course the alarmist view would be quite different.

I am not an alarmist and feel it is far too soon for such a view to have any credibility, especially as during these times of ice-free passage, the Antarctic sea-ice has continued to show its its slow, gradual, long-term increase.
Dorts.
* will answer your other point when time allows.

[Sigrunn]

Originally Posted by Dorts

We could continue to argue over Polar Bear populations, but they have made a steady recovery from their recorded low levels of the 1940's. The Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission, report that most of these animals have actually been increasing in population during the past few years and are at optimum levels. They are not endangered.

So far everything I have found that you have wrote to be incorrect and the usual arguments the sceptic camp pump that are very incorrect. It's one thing to think man is not causing it, it's another to claim the opposite to what the sheer amount of evidence tells you.

Your part above is very incorrect and shows you have not done your research and your spouting propaganda. The polar bear specialist group you talk about is in fact the IUCN and the link I have posted will take you there. You claim they say that you say, but on their site produce what I have said. This indicates you are spouting rubbish about a group that is doing extensive and valuable research that is vital.

In the 50s there where an estimated 35,000 polar bear, today's its estimated between 20,000 to 25,000. So their numbers have not increased in the slightest as you attempt to make out. Agreed that are not yet endangered but on the present course the will be.

This is now the second time I have pointed out your errors, have you actually read and researched what you have claimed?

[matt_xyz]

Dorts, I gave up arguing with you and one or two others some time ago in sheer frustration at your willingness to accept the contrarian arguments without question while apparently refusing to accept any of the 'mainstream' evidence.

Does it not strike you as slightly worrying that you won't accept *ANY* of the alleged evidence for anthropogenic climate change? Be it polar bears, sea level change etc etc you refute the lot. If, as you no doubt claim, you are simply subjecting the evidence to more scrutiny than the thousands of learned scientists around the world, would it not be more likely that you would find some evidence compelling even if other bits you thought were weak? Would that not be a more likely outcome if someone *OBJECTIVELY* subjected an entire body of science to critical review? To refute the lot suggests only one thing to me, a complete lack of objectivity.

Your position reminds me of that taken by Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author of the book 'The Skeptical Environmentalist'. He was rallying against the doom-monger environmentalists many of whom he believed overstated their claims, particularly in the 1970s. I would agree with him on that. However, rather than arguing that the truth isn't quite as bad as they claimed he made a much more extreme argument - that every single environmental problem was actually completely overstated and, in reality, we didn't need to worry about *ANY* of them. As such, he was as guilty of overstating his case as the doom monger environmentalists. Again, his book reeked of a complete lack of objectivity.

The contrarian climate change view suffers from the same problem I'm afraid. Time and again we hear the same old arguments trotted out, typically based on books from a bunch of authors with extremely shaky academic credentials. If these same individuals were forwarding 'pro climate change' arguments you would be the first to question their academic backgrounds not to mention their often vested interests. Instead they're accepted at face value while the work of those from Ivy League and Russell Group institutions are dismissed out of hand!

A final thought. If the contrarian view is based on a genuine objective scepticism of the climate science, why are so many contrarians from the political right? I'm not implying that you share these same political views, but you can't deny that the correlation between right wing, 'pro-freedom', beliefs and contrarian climate change beliefs is extremely strong, particularly in the US. How can this be explained if their climate views stem from an objective reading of the scientific evidence? Surely they're not letting their political beliefs cloud their scientific judgment?

I won't be continuing the debate I'm afraid, I have neither the time nor the inclination having gone around in circles countless times before. The above was merely to vent some steam.

Matt

[Sigrunn]

Dorts,

Here is the Polar bear specialist groups site (IUCN), a link to their table of bear numbers in the 19 Arctic regions. This data is their and you claim its telling us the opposite. COMPLETE BULL.

Summary of polar bear population status per 2010

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

Dorts, I gave up arguing with you and one or two others some time ago in sheer frustration at your willingness to accept the contrarian arguments without question while apparently refusing to accept any of the 'mainstream' evidence.
Matt

Matt. Why does it so annoy/frustrate people like you that people like me, who have looked at as much evidence possible over many years, have come to the conclusion that the so-called 'mainstream view' is wanting? It's rather like the religious zealot feeling a compulsion to convert the heathen.
I may not be able to articulate my opinion as well as some, but I fully understand the science and the methods used to obtain it. I fully understand how to interpret evidence, I do it nearly every day of the year in my botanical and other similar pursuits, and as I also had to do during my working life.

I do not dispute all the mainstream evidence, just as I don't dispute all of the contrarian views either. Problem?

Why should I be concerned that sea levels rise and fall, or ice levels, or temperatures or Co2 levels? It happens!! We were once joined to Europe, now we're not, much of Britain was once covered in ice, now it's not, but as sure as eggs, it will be again. Such things are refered to as 'natural cycles', not 'man-made cycles', in my opinion nature will prevail as always, we have to live and adapt.

Note that it has never been proven from actual experiments that the net effect of carbon dioxide is warming rather than cooling. All the so-called evidence from your thousands of scientists, (there are actually very few that inform the debate), is in many cases, conjecture, supposition or just plain opinion, just as it is from 'the other side'. Not all scientist's go along with your 'mainstream view' you know.

This is not to say that we should not be looking for more efficient ways of generating our energy, conserving our energy use and stopping damaging our environment. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of security of supply, increasing scarcity and rising costs, though as other threads have shown, the reliance on wind-power is very worrying.

It is quite possible, in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, that there is a real prospect of cooling occurring in the near future for several decades. And as power stations face closure, and with wind farms supposed to take up the slack, we could well see the lights go out in many homes, and all because Co2 based Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion. Though I note that more and more governments are beginning to see the light, (common sense may yet prevail).
Dorts.

[Dorts]

Originally Posted by Sigrunn

Dorts,
Here is the Polar bear specialist groups site (IUCN), a link to their table of bear numbers in the 19 Arctic regions. This data is their and you claim its telling us the opposite. COMPLETE BULL.

(By the way Sigrunn, ad hominem's are not necessary on these forums. Please keep them for your other sites. Oh, and by the way, capitol letters do not shout louder).

Sigrunn. I've looked in detail at your Polar Bear info and this is a precis of their findings.

M'Clintock Channel. Population increasing.
Kane Basin. Declining. Bears being deliberately killed!
Gulf of Boothia. Stable.
Chukchi Sea. Population unknown.
Viscount Melville Sound. Population unknown. But probably decreasing due to the deliberate killing of male bears!
Lancaster Sound. Population declining due to deliberate killing of male bears!
Laptev Sea. Population unknown.
Kara Sea. Population unknown.
Barents Sea. Estimated from the air, but true population unknown. Bears being deliberately killed!
East Greenland. Population unknown.
Davis Strait. Estimated. Probably rising.
Baffin Bay. Estimated.
Foxe Basin. Estimated in the 1980's.
Southern Hudson Bay. Stable.
Western Hudson Bay. Small decline.
Norwegian Bay. Small population declining.
Southern Beaufort Sea. Estimated.

In 5 areas the population is unknown.
In 5 areas it was estimated.
In 4 areas bears were being deliberately killed. Presumably to control increasing populations?
In 1 area it was declining.
In 1 area it was stable.
In 1 area it was increasing.

So much for your in-depth Specialist Group survey showing Polar Bears are in peril. It looks like they may well be; from the gun!
No further comment from me is necessary. I think this survey speaks for itself.
Dorts.

[Sigrunn]

Originally Posted by Dorts

(By the way Sigrunn, ad hominem's are not necessary on these forums. Please keep them for your other sites. Oh, and by the way, capitol letters do not shout louder).

Sigrunn. I've looked in detail at your Polar Bear info and this is a precis of their findings.

M'Clintock Channel. Population increasing.
Kane Basin. Declining. Bears being deliberately killed!
Gulf of Boothia. Stable.
Chukchi Sea. Population unknown.
Viscount Melville Sound. Population unknown. But probably decreasing due to the deliberate killing of male bears!
Lancaster Sound. Population declining due to deliberate killing of male bears!
Laptev Sea. Population unknown.
Kara Sea. Population unknown.
Barents Sea. Estimated from the air, but true population unknown. Bears being deliberately killed!
East Greenland. Population unknown.
Davis Strait. Estimated. Probably rising.
Baffin Bay. Estimated.
Foxe Basin. Estimated in the 1980's.
Southern Hudson Bay. Stable.
Western Hudson Bay. Small decline.
Norwegian Bay. Small population declining.
Southern Beaufort Sea. Estimated.

In 5 areas the population is unknown.
In 5 areas it was estimated.
In 4 areas bears were being deliberately killed. Presumably to control increasing populations?
In 1 area it was declining.
In 1 area it was stable.
In 1 area it was increasing.

So much for your in-depth Specialist Group survey showing Polar Bears are in peril. It looks like they may well be; from the gun!
No further comment from me is necessary. I think this survey speaks for itself.
Dorts.

You claimed that the polar bear specialit group had impirical evidence that polar bear numbers are increasing. When I go away and check out what you say I find you have either told a phibe or you have in fact not read what their research says. Now your becoming defensive.

As for numbers dying, if you look where they are shot you will find there has been a significant increase in areas that have human haditates that claim they very rarely saw to shot bears previously. So as ice melts it would be natural for bears to travel further for food etc. Recently Casey Anderson did some research for Nat Geo Wild and he recorded on a number of occasions Grizzly and Polar bears feeding together, something never recorded or seen with real evidence. Supporting that as it warms the polars head further south and the Grizzlys head further north and so on. Only a few years ago there was a polar/grizzly bear cross shot dead and DNA researched discovered they are breeding together. Something never seen, recorded or spoken of before.

I was hoping to have a sensible debate regarding all of this, so far you have claimed the IUCN say numbers are increasing, if you go check their site you will see that's not what they say at all.

I see your constantly trying to avoid your direct errors. I don't think it's all happening as fast some say but it is happening.

I don't really see the need to continue this as you have proven your not willing to consider anything that does not fit your opinion, even when you have been proven what you say is incorrect.

Have a nice day.

[King Edward]

Originally Posted by Dorts

K.E., following your reasearch have you found Arctic sea-ice is at the moment increasing or decreasing. Do you agree that over any given period of time the area of sea-ice will increase and decrease?

What exactly are you asking here? To be honest I don't really understand (the point of) these two questions.
1. Obviously Arctic ice is increasing at the moment, because it's the end of October and that's what happens at this time of year. This is not an indication of imminent global cooling, but of approaching winter in the northern hemisphere. If that was the answer you were looking for, then this is so trivial an answer I don't see why you asked it - it's obvious from the NSDIC graph. And if it wasn't, then what was the question?

2. What kind of time period do you have in mind? A month, a year, a decade, a century? Again, to draw any climatically relevant conclusions, you need to separate long term trends from (1) annual seasonality and (2) short term year-to-year variation. The fact that ice levels might be slightly higher/lower this year than last year is an example of (2) and on that basis is not very important. What is significant, though, is the observed fact that Arctic ice levels have been on a clear downward trend over the last 3 decades of satellite data.

Originally Posted by Dorts

Note that it has never been proven from actual experiments that the net effect of carbon dioxide is warming rather than cooling. All the so-called evidence from your thousands of scientists, (there are actually very few that inform the debate), is in many cases, conjecture, supposition or just plain opinion, just as it is from 'the other side'. Not all scientist's go along with your 'mainstream view' you know.

What kind of experiment do you have in mind?* Do you even think such an experiment is possible?

*I have a suggestion. For optimum realism, how about we use a 1:1 scale Earth in which we raise atmospheric CO2 levels as quickly as possible. We could, for instance, cut, cultivate and/or burn large areas of forest and other natural areas to release large amounts of stored carbon, and (to speed up the experiment) liberate further large amounts of carbon from deposits of oil, coal and gas. Then, as the CO2 level rises, we monitor the global temperature and see if that rises as well.

Anyway, that's my proposal. Do you have a better one?

[Manders]

Seems to me anyone who disputes the basic science of global warming should ask themselves why the earth was warmer 100 million years ago when the suns energy output was lower...