ESA Reports ‘Lowest Arctic Ice Coverage in History’

September 17, 2007

  • September 17, 2007 at 2:54 am
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledge the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.
    More to follow…
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=&IsTextOnly=True

  • September 17, 2007 at 4:23 am
    Nobody Important says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Didn’t another report indicate that the Antarctic ice pack is growing larger at the same time? No publicity there. Of course anyone who doesn’t jump on the global warming bandwagon is a neolithic idiot.

  • September 17, 2007 at 4:36 am
    Chilly says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It is thicker in the middle while shrinking in diameter. Something to do with volcanic activity under the ice cap, I have read. It has nothing to do with CO2, manmade or otherwise.

    Glaciers used to cover the US down to Kentucky, what made them retreat? Good thing they did.

  • September 18, 2007 at 9:45 am
    Little Frog says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    The thing that Conservatives just don’t get (and proudly so) is that the reason Communism and Socialism has failed throughout history is simply because our current crop of liberals have not yet had their chance to run it here the way they know it ought to be.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*