So you believe in global warming?

Question

figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the “lost” ice has come back. Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/35266/Global-warming-It-s-the-coldest-winter-in-decades

so you still believe in global warming?

Answer 1

Those who need to believe in Al Gore and Global Warming will always believe, and those who believe its a scam will always believe that.

Answer 2

No.  I know it's true.

The ice AREA has come back, because in winter it's easy to make a surface layer, especially given how far back it melted this summer.  The VOLUME is nowhere near what it was.

There's a reason why this is not changing scientists minds about global warming and this is not front page news, and it's not because of some imaginary "conspiracy".

Calling these folks "mindless b***s" is really credible (NOT).

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

I suppose you can choose to believe someone random here, instead.  World leaders won't.

Stinky - Savvy the difference between area and volume?

Answer 3

Why do you cite NOAA and then post a British tabloid? Can't you link to NOAA? I'll do it for you.

EDIT - Could you tell me what "original levels" are?

January 1998: 14.8 million sq km

January 1999: 14.5 million sq km

January 2000: 14.4 million sq km

January 2001: 14.3 million sq km

January 2002: 14.4 million sq km

January 2003: 14.5 million sq km

January 2004: 14 million sq km

January 2005: 13.7 million sq km

January 2006: 13.6 million sq km

January 2007: 13.8 million sq km

October 2007: 6.8 million sq km

January 2008: 14 million sq km (just like Jan 2004, but less than Jan 2002 and 2003)

The data shows GW...

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/archi...

Just change the dates via the drop-down menus.

EDIT - anyone who refers to someone that links to scientific data as a mindless boob is he himself less than a mindless boob.

Answer 4

Wow, it's Winter, call the tabloids!

How thick was the ice lost, vs. what regrew?

The current cooling La Nina weather influence may postpone record melt for a year or two, but if the high melt rate returns and the albedo change drives rapid warming, we could hit a "tipping point" and dumbed down tabloid articles may be the least of our worries.

Here's a quantification of the scientific agreement on the issue:

http://norvig.com/oreskes.html

The consensus was quantified in a Science study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Dec. 2004) in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

There have not been virtually no skeptical papers published in any peer-reviewed journal.

However, you will see frequent quotes and articles from these folks:

"The risks of passive smoking were disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Richard Lindzen, Steven Milloy, Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, Michael Crichton..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

Fox News is happy to run their material for them, since controversy drives ratings and revenue for them:

At Fox News, a Pundit for Hire

http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?...

"Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Mill...

So what's not to believe?  Who has the credibility, the scientists, or the professional PR firms and the tabloids that run their junk?

Answer 5

I never have. We're in an interglacial melting period of a 3 million+ year old ice age people!! Give it 15,000 years and we'll be back to a freezing period for around probably 40,000-100,000 years, then another interglacial period, and so on and so fourth until the Earth sorts itself out.

Answer 6

please excuse the following language: You are ignorant and stupid. to believe that bs from the right wing conservative morons is crazy! go watch an inconvenient truth and learn something in your life! to even doubt global warming is unhuman.

Answer 7

No, it doesn't. Sure, a lot of ice up north has frozen in the last few months--its WINTERTIME, genius.  Look at a calender, why don't you.

Answer 8

See my answer record.  I have been promulgating the truth of this scam since I have been on Y!A.

Answer 9

Look up   "planetX"...  then  you will  find out  what is  the  ROOT  cause  of  Climate change to the  Earth>

cheers!

Answer 10

Yeah, it's called winter.

I mean, what are you suggesting here?  That the planet has stopped warming?  We only need to look at the temperature record to know this isn't the case:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs...

Are you suggesting that the return of the sea ice during winter proves humans aren't causing the warming?  I don't see how you could possibly make that argument.

This is the problem with many denier arguments.  They say something nebulous like 'look polar bear populations aren't declining', 'look, China is having a cold winter', but they don't say how this is supposed to undermine the man-made global warming theory.  Because it doesn't.

Answer 11

You would think that if shrinking ice meant global warming, growing ice would would mean global cooling. but as I read these pages apparently that is not the case. you see, Shrinking Ice, Drought, and Heat Waves all equal Global Warming, however Growing Ice, Blizzards and Cold Snaps are only local events. It is very complex, I am sure an alarmist will explain it better. Well any how it's like religion, you just have to have faith that it is fact, true and man made and you will be accepted into their cult.  Your baptism will be to run to the store in your Prius and buy 5 Compact Fluorescent Lights.

Yeah Bob, I know, but as soon as the ice starts shringing again (quicker than ever, because it is so thin) it will be global warming again.  Just wait and see.

Answer 12

I heard that the sun's warming up but humans still contribute to some percentage to global warming...

Answer 13

I know it's a hoax.  Mindless b***s that listen to the likes of Al Gore will believe anything.  It's called being unable to think for yourself!

Answer 14

Yes and also that Solar Power Socialism is a way to end the poverty which conntributes to it and Global Warming.

Answer 15

THE ICE BRINGS COLD AIR A FUSION REACTION HAPPENS WITH THE WATER AND BINGO MORE ICE!!!!!!!

Answer 16

First, you misunderstand the phenomenon. 'Global warming' is also called 'climate change' or 'global change,' because not all areas would necessarily get warmer. Complicated changes in ocean and air currents could make many areas colder.

Second, one season does not a trend make. The temptation to call any single snowstorm or heatwave, or even whole year, evidence for or against global warming is not helpful, these data can only be helpful when viewed from a larger scope.

Answer 17

Quotations from respected experts and pseudo-experts merely confuses the uninformed public.  There will always be a contrasting respected expert to contradict every other expert. They all seem to know they are correct and maybe all of them are partially correct. The whole argument is starting to sound like a waste of our efforts.

We need to stop arguing over the causes of global warming and start planning to provide a better environment for our children.  Nobody who actually breaths, smells and sees could possibly argue that we are not causing significant damage to our planet. Some of that damage may or may not be global warming. What will it take to get people focused on a problem that we really can affect and resolve? Calling people stupid simply because they do not agree or do not have your rock solid data suggests that we should study that old concept that if you throw a rock from inside your glass house ... even if you do not know your house is built from glass ... well ... think about it for a while and start a meaningful discussion on solving not debating problems that will not be answered satisfactorily for people who already know they are right. And both sides of this argument know they are right. Hmmm!

Answer 18

I have never supported man-made global warming

Answer 19

YES!!! Please listenmore to Al Gore hes a green-ious!!

Buy those green bags at stop & shop and buy energy saving light bulbs. It would also help if u read about global warming and buy smencils (scented pencils made from recycled newspaper)

Answer 20

It's regardless what i believe. but it's couldn't hurt to save energy and get rid of gas guzzlers. Oil is finite, the world is finite, and America is finite.

Answer 21

When asking this question people, please specify AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming). We know the globe has been warming about 1 degree  in the last 100 years. AGW is a bunch of c**p.

Answer 22

There is no question that if we keep up putting out so much CO2 that we wont have enough trees to clean all that air. Even if you dont believe in global warming (which i dont see how you couldnt belive in a fact) we need to start living cleaner for the future of our children.