Global warming is so yesterday. It's the start of an ice age.

All that ice will surely kill the polar bears dead! They will starve!

Wow, I see the flat-Earthers are out in force today. See post #8 for directions to the truth as opposed to the nonsense all three of you just spewed.

The graph you give a link to shows different. At both the minimum extent (Sept-Oct) and the maximum extent (March) the only month that is lower is 2007. ALL displayed months are considerably lower than the 1979-2006 average (Black Line). Try looking at the data rather than listening to the talking heads on Fox.

Try looking at the data rather than listening to the talking heads on Fox.

They can't... sadly Fox viewers have a lower IQ than the average bear. Stop trying to confuse them with facts. ;-)

econ

You don't know how to read a graph do you? The bold black line is the average ice from 1979 to 2006. The other lines below are the years for 2007 to 2011. You did notice the key word "BELOW" right?

Yeah, It's time for the global warming alarmists to change and start screaming global cooling. It happens every 15 or so years or has for the past 50. They flip-flop and change to the opposite extreme.

Climate change is an erratic process but that doesn't change the basic premiss, Killer. You're going to believe what you want to believe and facts are't going to get in the way.

The can't read a graph, anti-science, "climate-gate" pundit followers are becoming a drag on U.S. economic development and national security. Read or any of the other DoD global warming reports (just search site:.mil global warming). Yeah, you know they'e just a bunch of liberal tree-huggers.

Sorry, my link keeps getting deleted. The name of the report is "Navy Arctic Roadmap" of 2009.

Arctic sea ice volume in September was 1/4 of the volume in September of 1980. It is losing about 300 cubic kilometers of ice each year.

For the past two years, arctic sea ice extent has hovered around one million square kilometers BELOW the average for 1979-2009.

Great picture. I remember that only a handful of years ago Russians were able to navigate the coastal waters of Siberia. Each time this was possible a lot of excitement surrounded the occasion. Both the Russian Navy and commerce vessels were involved. In this picture it appears that only small pockets of the Laptev Sea near the Lena River delta and Taymyr Pen. as well as Wrangel Is. are “passable”.

It does have a couple of Ho's...Ho, Ho, Ho!

The lesser extent is what is important. During the colder winter, there might not be a lot of variation in the extent (the area covered by ice) as the Arctic is pretty much covered over. The ice is however thinner and then during the warmer months the extent is getting smaller since the thinner ice melts back farther. More (darker) ocean is then exposed to sun rather than the (lighter) ice which adsorbs more heat thus reinforcing the cycle. It IS happening. The data is there. Look at it rather than just listening to the talking heads on Fox.

You don't see a lot of variation (yet) late in the winter because the Arctic Ocean is bounded by land.

Until it shrinks to the point where it no longer reaches land in the winter, it will always have pretty much the same extent this time of year.

The minimum, on the other hand, is not limited that way and thus more accurately reveals year-to-year trends.

Not to mention that Arctic sea ice volume is now about 4,000 cubic kilometers below average (at both minimum and maximum), and is dropping by about 300 cubic kilometers per year.

lol... those glaciers have been melting for 12,000 years. or did you not read that in your Algore newsletter?

Intersting AD, those glaciers have been melting for 12,000 years, huh. Information from these two sources would tend to debunk your assertion.

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/resource1000.html

Couldn't have been Al, he's too busy inventing the internet.

hmmmm...would I take advice from someone who could soon be out of a job and flipping burgers, who might not get that grant or any funding if they don't produce some kind of amazing discovery in their field?
I might stick around if they offered free cookies and coffee while they jabbered on....

You're right Charle7834. Straping fake balls to your 4x4 doesn't give it reproductive abilities and turning the longhorns logo upside only makes it look like a retarded frog. These discoveries are a complete failure and whoever is funding them should be ashamed!

I still say evil scientists are out there melting the icecaps with blowtourches just to get more funding. I KNOW some of you will believe that!

Except that not all evidence says so. Oh, yes, more climate scientists DISAGREE with Algore than agree. Or did you not read that in your Algore newsletter.

What is it they disagree with Algore about and anyone in particular?

All attempts by the Denialists to debunk the well-scrutinized science have proven to be false, yet they continue to spew out ever more ridiculous and regurgitated lies. Year after year the evidence continues to stack up against you and your Flat-Earth arguments as they become more and more absurd. Check post #8 for directions to the truth.

Sorry TA, but 97% of climate scientists agree that we are disrupting Earth's climate.

@TheAdrock13

Except that not all evidence says so. Oh, yes, more climate scientists DISAGREE with Algore than agree. Or did you not read that in your Algore newsletter.

That statement is utterly baseless in any fact. I challenge you to provide any scientific journal that supports your claims.

The actual FACT is that there is widespread agreement in the scientific community that climate change is very real. The only disagreement is from political right-wingers, not scientists.

Sorry, Toasty, but if you do your research, you'll find that only 43% of scientists associated with global biosphere ecological evolution think that the Earth's climate is actually going through a "Phase of change". 91% of climate scientists agree that the Earth's climate change is a natural cyclic phenomenon and not man made. Another 83% of global climactic research biologists agree that the current process of global warming will not drastically affect photosynthesis or the process of oxygen regeneration in the biosphere. According to the Youngston global climate survey conducted in 2007 and again in the spring of 2010, 32% of greenhouse gasses produced by manmade processes were being recycled into the soil and the atmosphere and over 88% of what they referred to as "critical climactic molecular evolution" Oh, what the heck, I made this whole thing up. lol.

I can make up statistics too!

You made yours up, I didn't.

Sure.

No, RC! Don't show them irrefutable data! Don't show them... SCIENCE!

It's tough to talk science with the dimmer bulbs who think science is some sort of conspiracy. (i.e. - Scientists claim the world is more than 5,000 years old and my preacher knows better) Compound it with their response to media reports concerning science (well that's just the "main stream media" which is part of the conspiracy!) Best to just ignore them.

Who needs science? I just want to live the way Al Gore does. Using more than 221,000 KwH of electricity per year at his mansion.

He's too busy being proven right by climate scientists.

@wildcatwest:

1. We are not in an ice age at this point in time.

2. There is a liquid ocean in the arctic right now. It's just covered with ice.

3. While it's true that there have been climate shifts throughout earth's history. ALL scientific data shows that manking is causing shifts to occur at UNATURAL rates, which are affecting global weather.

Heaven forbid that we "ignore and/or mock" SOME scientists .. Science has never been wrong before.

FACT, the earth is warming .. .THEORY, it is caused by man's activity .. .Now, we are left to evaluate the likihood of that theory being accurate ... accurate enough to prompt us to regress ourselves back to the pre-industrial age ... No thanks ...

Talk of famine and humanitarian catastrophe, just imagine the mass starvation and catastrophe caused by a society that can no longer use modern industrial means to support it's population. And we should be willing to do this on an unproven theory? ... Again, no thanks.

Puke out your Activa?

Finally, the culling of the human herd, and you think it's bad for the planet? Your ocean view property, will definitely depreciate in value.

LOL Wish I would live another 40 years so I could sit and read your post and die laughing!!!

I thought Jamie Lee Curtis didn't have any children, so how will this affect your grandchildren? You're not who you say you are. You have no credibility. Therefore, your post is meaningless.

@Alcabiades:

Your post is really perfect to show why there is such a controversy on this topic...

"Heaven forbid that we "ignore and/or mock" SOME scientists .. Science has never been wrong before."

Yes, science has been wrong before, and most likely there will be scientific "truths" that are shown to be wrong in the future. But, ask yourself if that means that all science is wrong and should effectively ignored? And, when you choose to join the debate, don't you think that it would be wise to contribute true statements, rather than false ones, because it's not just "some" scientists that believe that global climate change is real and has been accelerated by man, it is virtually EVERY peer reviewed scientific study. That's right, there has not been one single peer reviewed scientific study that contradicts the theory that manmade climate change is real and accelerating.

FACT, the earth is warming .. .THEORY, it is caused by man's activity .. .Now, we are left to evaluate the likihood of that theory being accurate ... accurate enough to prompt us to regress ourselves back to the pre-industrial age ... No thanks ...

"No thanks" what? You don't want to go back to the pre-industrial age? Who said that you had to. As I stated, yes it's a theory, but a well backed theory. Just like Einstein had a "theroy" of relativity. It's still a theory, but it's backed by solid math and has 100 years of absolute success making predictions. As stated, the theory that manmade global warming is real is backed up by EVERY peer reviewed study. The nay-sayers like to try to say how not all studies and scientists believe it, but what they fail to mention is that they are talking about people OUTSIDE of the mainstream peer reviewed science community who is not doing comprehensive peer reviewed work.

Talk of famine and humanitarian catastrophe, just imagine the mass starvation and catastrophe caused by a society that can no longer use modern industrial means to support it's population. And we should be willing to do this on an unproven theory? ... Again, no thanks.

Yes, that would be catostophic. Fortunately, no one has suggested that this is what is needed, much less what would happen if we take action. In fact, quite ironically, if we don't act, the situation you describe above is exactly where we will be. We can certainly have a modern world that allows us to utilized our technological advances and still not contribute to global climate change.

Additionally, you need to look up the word theory, because, by definition if a "theory" were proven, then it wouldn't be a theory! Einstien's theory of relativity is a theory, do you not believe that he was right as well? Again, global climate change has many credibe and peer reviewed studies that support it.

I know that this Jamie Lee is a phony because they said Activa . The correct name of the product is Activia.

You in your myopic world have the gaul to make conclusions about the globe from a grove of willows? And " I have found nothing approaching scientific proof that it is man caused"..well thankyou God !

You are welcome. But nice sarcasm anyway .. . the refuge of ignorance.

And yes .. . Those willows are one of the best indicators in the arctic .. do some reading to educate yourself before you scoff ... The climate IS warming ... that comes from observation and specific measurements thoughout the globe .,...

The THEORY that the changes observed are man caused is just that, theory.

Interesting, I appreciate your first-hand observation. I think that based on the overwhelming scientific consensus, fiscal conservatives should concede that global warming is occurring but argue that it's too late to do much about it without crippling the U.S. economy. Our resources may be better spent making preparations to adapt.

Your characterization of climate science in the 60's and 70's is completely spurious.

Climate scientists have consistently been warning about global WARMING since about 1950. There was never anything more than a paper or two that even suggested otherwise, and those papers were typically rejected by their own authors within a year of publication.

Basic physics shows that (a) CO2 warms the surface of the planet, and (b) the additional CO2 in the atmosphere comes from anthropogenic sources.

You would have to discredit thermodynamics and quantum mechanics to refute those conclusions. They are about as close to hard facts as its possible to attain in science.

& Merry Christmas...2 U 2, Sue!

Merry Christmas Sue.

The world would be a better place with more people like you.

God Bless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojeLyPo_Wz4

And ... "Almost" anyone with a 12th grade education knows that any conclusions drawn from that bare graph should be viewed with a great deal of skepticism without the underlying data to give the graph some context and support.

Without the data, it is just a bunch of squiggly lines that could be created with a simple program by any computer literate 10 year old.

Oh sure..they make it all up. It's just a ruse web site. If you want to plow through all their data,

be my guest. It's all available. But of course, all the time lapse sat data and field data don't mean

s'hit..right? YOUR tax dollars financing bogus science and scientists....NASTY !

Al, the same site explicitly links to the source data. Are you just trying to be dense?

That was idiotic. The North Pole is currently tilted AWAY from the sun, hence northern hemisphere winter.

And the comparisons that show dramatic ice loss are for the same dates in the same places each year.

Any minor fluctuations in the Antarctic are totally swamped by the massive ice loss at the north pole.

Uumm, what in the world are you talking about?? "The North Pole is tilting more towards the Sun than normal"?? It's called WINTER in the Northern Hemisphere, hence the Sun is NOT tilting MORE toward the Sun but AWAY from it.

None of this matters because which ever way the Earth is tilted towards the Sun, the average global temperature is continuing to rise. And, we (humans) are having an impact on that temperature climb whether you believe it or not.

I'm pretty sure the Sun doesn't have ice caps. So, no one is "disputing the melting of our solar ice caps." But, it would be "pretty silly," if they did.

Shhh Uncle!!! I just sold him a bridge there!

Apparently links are filtered out. Just Google for "arctic sea ice graphs".

(And ignore the requests for login to the military site.)