Forget global warming, Alaska is headed for an ice age


#1

Forget global warming, Alaska is headed for an ice age
Alex DeMarban
AlaskaDispatch.com
Dec 23, 2012

Alaska is going rogue on climate change.

Defiant as ever, the state that gave rise to Sarah Palin is bucking the mainstream yet again: While global temperatures surge hotter and the ice-cap crumbles, the nation’s icebox is getting even icier.

That may not be news to Alaskans coping with another round of 50-below during the coldest winter in two decades, or to the mariners locked out of the Bering Sea this spring by record ice growth.

Then again, it might. The 49th state has long been labeled one of the fastest-warming spots on the planet. But that’s so 20th Century.

In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

It would be easy for some to write off this paper as another skeptics’ outlet so as to ignore unpleasant facts, but this article pays due homage to Global Warming. This article seems more like a Global-Warming-true-believer outlet that couldn’t quite bring itself to use the Ignore button on this, to Warmistas, problematic story.


#2

Why would they ignore it when the entire rest of the arctic is warming, not cooling, like southern Alaska? Since 2000, the pack ice in the arctic has melted significantly, allowing larger commercial ships to traverse the several Northwest passages for longer periods of time.


#3

Extent of arctic ice:

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/dlashof/Arctic-sea-ice-2012-3000x1800-nointtext.jpg

This isn’t something that can be overlooked simply because part of Alaska got colder.


#4

Just to add my bit. We’re worried about Climate Change. More than global warming. This paper attempted to find one place and use it as a basis to combat global warming/climate change. But if Alaska is experiencing colder than normal temps then this could also be used as further proof of climate change. (I’m not smart enough to do the study).

The fact is, that the Earth has had above average temperature for what has been over 300 months straight. That’s a fact. Droughts are worse. Fact. Extreme weather is more common and powerful. Fact. Humans are producing more CO2 than ever and it correlates with all the other facts listed. Fact.


#5

The earth is not doing anything that it has not always done, weather patterns have always changed and always will.

Human activity has nothing to do with the weather now just as it has had nothing to do with the weather over the previous countless weather cycles that are exactly like the one we are in now.

The Religious Extremist’s in the Human Caused Global Warming church know this, their leaders just count on the ignorance and gullibility of rank and file Enviro-Nazi’s to never learn or apply critical thinking skills in place of the blind faith they place in their priests.

If the Extreme Left had any measurable intellectual capacity they would not be the Extreme Left, they would commit mass suicide if their priests told them to and that is basically what they are doing in destroying the world economy by worshiping their fake god.

They have no priest that will give them poison Kool Aid this time, they must be fought by those who want to survive or all will perish under their evil tyranny.


#6

BOP is a leftist. Fact!

Do you seriously believe all this? Droughts and extreme weather aren’t worse. Droughts and extreme weather are more widely known and now are media sensations. We are now monitoring the weather all over the world with technologies that were unprecedented 20 years ago.

No CO2 has nothing to do with the weather. It makes up exactly 0.039445% of the atmosphere! That’s a fact that most liberals tend to overlook. Do you know how small that number is?


#7

We were hotter during the Dust Bowl era. We were hotter during the Dark Ages. The other planets in the solar system are following the same pattern as the Earth. How is my SUV causing the warming on Mars and Venus and how did man cause the increase in temp during the Dark Ages???


#8

“One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1200 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking? One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1200 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?
Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.
Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today’s warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.
Overall, our conclusions are:
a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2000 years, and
b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century warming” ** I couldn’t get the quote function to work on all of that. **It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. But to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start forest fires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.


#9

Yes, ignore the natural warming and cooling cycles that have been going on since the earth was created. Beyond that bubba, why are the other planets warming and cooling at the same rate. Isn’t it at all possible that we’re in a warming solar cycle or have we managed to pollute across the vacuum of space?


#10

Haha! Because, it’s colder in some places and warmer in others that means that man-made global warming skeptics are wrong??? No, it actually means that we are exactly right! Because that is the argument that we have been using for years! Weather patterns vary in other parts of the world, yet I’m surprised the Europeans are still on board with a theory that is highly Western and does not take into account every country in the world’s weather patterns. Maybe we should take note of how every third country say climate change legislation hurts their developing infrastructure thanks to the new sun god religion.

Now onto the part I just quoted above: How exactly do you separate human caused C02 and natural caused C02? Do liberals even believe that natural C02 occurs in nature? From all the C02 is evil campaigns that are out there. I am lead to believe that they do not.


#11

SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECONSTRUCTIONS FOR THE LAST 2,000 YEARSCommittee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate
Division on Earth and Life Studies
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years

Overview
The Earth warmed by roughly 0.6°C (1°F) during the 20th century and is projected to warm by an additional ~2–6°C during the 21st century.[SUP]1[/SUP] Paleoclimatology, or the study of past climates, can help place this warming in the context of natural climate variability. Lessons learned from studying past climates can also be applied to improving projections of how the climate system will respond to future changes in greenhouse gas concentrations and other climate forcings, as well as how ecosystems and societies might be affected by climate change.
Widespread, reliable instrumental records are available only for the last 150 years or so. To study how climatic conditions varied prior to the time of the Industrial Revolution, paleoclimatologists rely on proxy evidence such as tree rings, corals, ocean and lake sediments, cave deposits, fossils, ice cores, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and documentary evidence. For example, records of Alpine glacier length, some of which are derived from paintings and other documentary evidence, have been used to reconstruct the time series of surface temperature variations in south-central Europe for the last several centuries. Until recently, most reconstructions of climate variations over the last few thousand years focused on specific locations or regions. Starting in the 1990s, researchers began to combine proxy records from different geographic regions, often using a variety of different types of records, in an effort to document large-scale climate changes over the last few millennia. Most of these large-scale surface temperature reconstructions have focused on hemispheric average or global average surface temperatures over the last few hundred to few thousand years. These reconstructions, and in particular the following questions, are the focus of this report:


#12

Nice data. So how are the other planets warming at the same rate if we are not there to contribute?


#13

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:10, topic:37676”]
Haha! Because, it’s colder in some places and warmer in others that means that man-made global warming skeptics are wrong??? No, it actually means that we are exactly right! Because that is the argument that we have been using for years! Weather patterns vary in other parts of the world, yet I’m surprised the Europeans are still on board with a theory that is highly Western and does not take into account every country in the world’s weather patterns. Maybe we should take note of how every third country say climate change legislation hurts their developing infrastructure thanks to the new sun god religion.

Now onto the part I just quoted above: How exactly do you separate human caused C02 and natural caused C02? Do liberals even believe that natural C02 occurs in nature? From all the C02 is evil campaigns that are out there. I am lead to believe that they do not.
[/quote] Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.

As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).

Figure 1: Global carbon cycle. Numbers represent flux of carbon dioxide in gigatons (Source: Figure 7.3, IPCC AR4).

But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).

Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.

The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?


#14

Nice graphics. Now how are the other planets effected by our CO2 emissions?


#15

What smartass said.


#16

Nope you didn’t answer my question. Nice try Skeptical Science Blog Worshipper. I asked you how do they determine the difference between Man Made C02 and regular C02 when measuring this stuff? Seems to me they just correlate two different things and say oh this causes this to rise, because we say so! They have no way to separate man C02 from regular C02! Since it all goes into the same place.


#17

[quote=“jjf3rd77, post:16, topic:37676”]
Nope you didn’t answer my question. Nice try Skeptical Science Blog Worshipper. I asked you how do they determine the difference between Man Made C02 and regular C02 when measuring this stuff? Seems to me they just correlate two different things and say oh this causes this to rise, because we say so! They have no way to separate man C02 from regular C02! Since it all goes into the same place.
[/quote] All of that data is directly from the National Academy of sciences, It’s all in the links. Read. A Quick google search turned up this. Carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Researchers know this both by calculating the amount released based on various national statistics, and by examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere,[SUP][18][/SUP] as the burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO[SUB]2[/SUB] containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling scientists to distinguish between natural and human-caused contributions to CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration.


#18

What’s the matter bunky, can’t find any charts or graphs on solar cycles that back you up?


#19

There’s no evidence that any other planet is experiencing long-term warming. The recent Mars warming is likely caused by changes in albedo. Earth, on the other hand, has been warming rapidly for many years in the past century. It is much different than a warming fluke on Mars.


#20

Lots of links here for you to deny. The Whole Solar System is Undergoing Global Warming., page 1