Pasadena (CA) - NASA reported on Tuesday that after years of research, a team of scientists have assembled data showing that normal, decade-long changes in Arctic Ocean currents are largely responsible for the major Arctic climate shifts observed over the past several years.  These periodic reversals in the ocean currents move warmer and cooler water around to new places, greatly affecting the climate.  While they are not ruling out the possibility of a continual warming trend, the rate at which the Earth is warming seems to be far more stable than the Arctic would indicate.


Coordinating out of the University of Washington and their Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory in Seattle, director James Morison's team used a series of satellites to collect data over a period of time between 2002 and 2006.  They also used deep-sea pressure gauges which monitor ocean circulation, salinity, pressure and temperature from the surface to the bottom of the ocean.  The team measured the samples as representative columns, each of a cross-section or vertical tube in the ocean.  They fed the data into a computer and observed the trends indicated over time.  The graph on the left visualizes various increases and decreases in ocean data, specifically changes in bottom pressure indicating water weight.


Arctic Oscillation
The results have demonstrated that a known process called Arctic Oscillation, whereby ocean currents reverse their previous decade-long migration patterns from time to time, have been moving warmer and more saline water to places it had not previously gone.  This natural cycle in oceanic currents has caused the significant changes in Arctic climate observed from the late 1970s through the 1990s.  This pattern has allowed us to observe a greatly amplified effect over any natural warming trend which may be occurring (there is still no solid consensus on that issue).

The research team also discovered that the ocean currents have recently switched back to the route they took in the previous decades, prior to the significant warming seen throughout the 1990s.  These new changes will likely put the Arctic regions back into a cooling cycle again, although it will likely take several years to be observed as changes on these immense scales, millions of cubic miles of water, take time.


Decade long cycles
The Arctic Oscillation effect was predicted by computer models early on.  It's been observed now with hard data for decades.  It is nothing short of a major atmospheric circulation pattern in the northern hemisphere.  Changes in salinity and temperature alter the various chemistry of the ocean, resulting in changes in water weight as the saltier and cooler water is heavier.  When huge volumes of water change their weight even slightly, enormous new patterns in ocean currents are the result.  The team seems to have enough data over decades to demonstrate that everything we're seeing is the result of natural cycles.


Stabilizing again
According to the news release, the Arctic Oscillation was fairly stable until around 1970.  At that point it began shifting in decade-long timescales.  It eventually resulted in a type of counter-clockwise swirling pattern which significantly altered the Arctic climate in the 1990s.  However, in the late 1990s it began stabilizing again and as of the 2006 data, appears to be stable today.  The team believes that the counter-clockwise swirling will come back again at some point.  Several computer models show it coming back with a much more profound impact on climate than was seen previously.


Continued research
The team is continuing to gather and analyze sample data.  While the trend they're seeing now is a restoration to previous bottom level pressures, salinity and temperatures, the Arctic Oscillation cycle will continue.  Scientists will be observing these trends with new tools, satellites, and with greater computer processing potential as faster and faster machines come out to more accurately simulate something as large as the ocean.
 
 

HA HA HA HA HA

Nov 15, 2007 10:02     

HA HA HA ha ha... he.... ha... Sorry, I was hysterically laughing at all these global warming nut jobs who were blaming 600 parts per million of CO2 for the melting of the arctic.
e1000 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

Re: HaHa HA

Nov 15, 2007 10:11     

the curch of global warming is just that. A CURCH.
mike report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

STOP ARCTIC OSCILLATION!

Nov 15, 2007 10:19     

It's probably caused by wakeboarding boats (the SUVs of the waterways). Fight the new threat!
UndeadBeav report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

STOP ARCTIC OSCILLATION!

Nov 15, 2007 10:20     

It's probably caused by wakeboarding boats (the SUVs of the waterways). Fight the new threat!
UndeadBeav report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -1

The two sides of the coin

Nov 15, 2007 10:52     

This has been proven before in the past few years but with the media swarming the "green" movement, it has been swept under the rug. At least it is being allowed to come out into the general media.
Endothrow report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

this is why

Nov 15, 2007 10:54     

The Al Gore's of the world are so problematic. Incomplete information is always dangerous. We are under a constant barage of conflicting information - new energy sources and the one thing that all of these stories have in common is that they do not tell the whole story. I'm it is the same with this story. We are far too reactionary. The earth operates on times scales of thousands of years - something that we cannot possibly understand. If we see a blip of change in 100 years we instantly start proclaiming that the sky is falling. There is so much we do not understand, but, what is dangerous is that there is so much more out there, so much complexity and nuance that we simply don't even know what it is nor how it effects the big picture.

wesley mckenzie report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

Re: 600 parts per million

Nov 15, 2007 10:59     

You're not particularly bright, are you? In any case, this says little about climate change as a result of CO2, as I read this synopsis. It goes to the shifts in polar ice. Moreover, it is a single study, and the study itself will undergo scrutiny from other scientists in the coming months/years. The global warming naysayers sound much like the Intelligent Designer proponists. They seem to think that when science revises any aspect of an existing theory (in the case of AGW, something between hypothesis and theory), that the theory is invalid. They seem not to understand science or the scientific method. For the dimwitted and the ignorant (and the both), refer to gravity and general relativity.

Me report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -1

We have no clue

Nov 15, 2007 11:06     

The weather dorks can't even predict the local weather with any accuracy more than 6 hours in advance. What makes us think we can predict the causes of long-term climate change? This is just another article that points out the fact that we really have no idea...
Skeptic report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

Doesn't say global warming didn't exist...

Nov 15, 2007 11:09     

To e1000... keep on laughing, but maybe at yourself this time. The article never says that global warming doesn't exist or doesn't have an impact. In fact, global warming impacts more than just the arctic. It is attitudes like yours that really keep us from making progress. It amazes me how people can so blindly reject some science and accept others.. That computer you are currently glued to was created by science - in many ways the science used to research the materials to build faster & better computers is used by scientists of all sorts of disciplines (psst - some of us like to call it chemistry). Who knows ... the next step of this research may show that global warming has caused these currents to change. We know alot, but we don't know everything... the thing is, we shouldn't assume either.

Greg report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -1

Re: Re: HaHa HA

Nov 15, 2007 11:56     

I do hope you meant church, rather than curch. Regardless, I agree with you. The tactics used by the global warming community are exactly those used by religious fanatics. It's just this time they've got the governments on their side.
Aaron report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

all kneel down and praise Mr. Gore

Nov 15, 2007 12:23     

just more proof that Gore is just another dishonest salesman full of hot air trying to rip you off. Speaking of hot air, isn't that global warming? See, he's a major contributor too
Dick report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

Badly written confusing article.

Nov 15, 2007 12:58     

What is the cause of this oscillation? [The oscillation is part of a natural cycle which causes ocean currents to change paths from time to time, on very lengthy, multi-decade timescales. -Rick] Oh and what does this mean.. "It eventually resulted in a type of counter-clockwise swirling pattern which significantly altered the Arctic climate in the 1990s. However, in the late 1990s it began stabilizing again and as of the 2006 data, appears to be stable today." Is this implying that we're going to see more melting, less melting, or a stabilization of the oscillation? [Yes. I indicate in the article that the current projection is an increased bit of cooling, but that the swirling will return and models predict that when it does it will bring even more pronounced surface effects (ice melting, notable temperature changes, etc.) than there were with this most recent swirl. -Rick] What the heck is this "counter-clockwise swirling pattern"? [The Arctic Ocean is largely circular. The swirling pattern is the pattern of water which, if looked at the ocean from above, would appear to be circling around counter-clockwise. The swirling pattern has changed. The water is now moving over the pole and back into the other ocean. -Rick] This whole article gave me no useful information. In fact, reading it over and over, the sentences make little sense whatsoever. I know high schoolers who can write better than this. [So do I. Gifted little chaps. :) -Rick]

Paul Wowk report abuse vote down vote up Votes: -1

Re: HaHa HA

Nov 15, 2007 13:11     

Let me clarify mike's post from above... the kerchief worn by Scottish women of global warming is just that. A KERCHIEF WORN BY SCOTTISH WOMEN.
IdBuyThatForADollar report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Re: We have no clue Nov 15, 2007 11:06

Nov 15, 2007 13:17     

More proof the education system is failing. Global warming (really, Climate Change) does not rely on predicting tomorrows weather (something, btw, that we are remarkably good at). *I* can reliably predict next years climate in Arizona. Savvy the difference? Silly epsilons...
Me report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

It is all about research money

Nov 15, 2007 13:27     

I've done a ton of research myself on global warming looking into both sides of the issue. My informed opinion is that a driving force behind Man made Global Warming is research money. If you need money for a project just throw in "effects of global warming at the end of it. Even if your studying squirrels in a park...you will get funded if global warming is contained in your project research. The earth goes through cycles just and this is just another cycle. Heck, people in the '70s thought we were about to enter another ice age. So in thirty years that didn't happen because it was just a cycle. Sadly, when this all blows over the global warming advocates will proclaim that all of our hard work saving the environment has prevented global warming and take complete credit for it to justify their agenda.

Jay report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

RE: Re: 600 parts per million

Nov 15, 2007 13:36     

('me' says): "You're not particularly bright, are you? In any case, this says little about climate change as a result of CO2, as I read the synopsis." I think you're the dumb one here. Let's spell it out for you: the article says "global warming", (an effect caused by too much CO2), is not the main factor in the equation. If you think global warming "naysayers" don't understand the scientific method, then you're obviously way out of touch with reality. You sound more like a stooge for algore.

Dick report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

You have to be sceptical of the sceptics too...

Nov 15, 2007 13:50     

Here is another report of the same findings which contains the caveats that Hodgin conveniently left out of his version, and also doesn't contain the subtle subjectivity: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071113200545.htm Did you mean to say "church", mike? HaHa HA...
Sceptic report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

@Greg

Nov 15, 2007 14:07     

I think your last point is the point - we don't know and we shouldn't assume. Just like scientists who dispute global warming claims shouldn't be dismissed as kooks or way out of the mainstream. I think the article shows that there is a lot we don't know - we try to fit observations into a model, but you need to be careful that there are not other plausible explanations for those observations and observations alone does not equal proof (or correlation does not = causation). For years, global warming activists have pointed to "the melting icecaps" as proof that global warming is a major problem and ACCELERATING. I think this article should make folks take pause and challenge those assertions. I'm not saying global warming isn't real or an issue, but honest people can have a credible debate over the extent and debate the measures that are necessary to counteract it without demagoguing (sp?) on it. Nor should the Nobel Peace prize be used as a political tool. with all due respect to Al Gore, what "peace" has he created and does he really hold a candle to the accomplishments of the past winners of this award? I'm troubled that the accomplishments of the people in the past who have earned this award will diminished by the apparent politicization of the award (And I'm not talking just Al Gore - you look need to look no further than the nominee list for this award over the last few years). TG - thank you for publishing an opposing point of view - it is always useful to see the many sides of a story as opposed to simply publishing stories filtered down to a conclusion.

joe report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

I've always supported global warming

Nov 15, 2007 16:01     

This global warming stuff is a plot by the liberals whose hot air is the true cause of the problem. They want global cooling so the conservatives will stay home and not vote next November and a democrat will be the president and then the global warming problem will be miraculously solved. But you won't trick this neoconservative you sneaky liberals you. Ha!
charlie report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Your missing the point(s)

Nov 15, 2007 20:36     

Does, "The team believes that the counter-clockwise swirling will come back again at some point. Several computer models show it coming back with a much more profound impact on climate than was seen previously.", mean that it will cool back down, or will the melting get worse, and more homes/land is lost to the rise in water. [These are computer models. No one knows for sure what will happen. If the swirling stops and the currents proceed in a particular way (and I do not know specifically which way that is, and I doubt anyone else does either), then the arctic will cool back down because its heat source will have been removed, that of the underground heated seas. When the swirling returns, more melting, warmer surfaces, etc., will all be seen. The answer is literally: "Yes and no, and we don't know." -Rick] As for the Global warming comments, the 'scare' of global warming has helped address the issues of pollution and loss of natural resorces more then anything else has. We still have other crisis that will effect most of you as you get older and really cause problems for your grandchildren. Remember "We don't inherit our land from our ancestors, we borrow them from our Grandchildren."

goldragon70 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Jay you are an idiot and need to grow up Your stat...

Nov 16, 2007 00:01     

Jay you are an idiot and need to grow up Your statement that people in the 70's thought we were entering another Ice Age is a urban myth. The myth is based on a single Newsweek article that interviewed a single "scientist" who opined that the climate was cooling. FYI, scientific consensus is not established by what is published in general news magazines. Scientific consensus comes from conclusions from scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals. BTW, there is nothing in this report that invalidated the theory of Global Climate Change as caused by increased C02. These guys were only talking about the Arctic. There is nothing in this story to explain the surface and air warming that has been monitored. PS-----Both your heroes, Newt Gingrich and Govt Arnold support action to stop Global Climate Change PSS----Get with the program or go back and hang out with your buds from The Flat Earth Society.

bill report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Not Our Fault?

Nov 16, 2007 07:21     

It is nice to hear a theory that does not blame man for every thing. :)
TomLeeM/BigWarpGuy report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Bill, you sir are an idiot.

Nov 16, 2007 08:11     

If you are attempting to flame me at least get your facts straight. Not only was it an article in Newsweek it was also an cover page article in Time, 1974 I believe. It was also proclaimed by several scientists not just 1. Secondly, I hate Newt Gingrich and I'm not a big fan of the Governator. So go hug a tree you liberal hippie.
Jay report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Why doesn't this get main stream mediacoverage?

Nov 16, 2007 09:51     

The most amazing thing to me about this is that the main stream media hasn't picked this article up. [There's no political capital in the truth. Fear and agendas breed an atmosphere of public fear, and therein lies the possibility of usurping whatever goals they're after. -Rick] If this were a "OMFG the sky is falling!" article, it would be plastered all over CNN and the rest of the "news" outlets. I found this article by accident and googled it and the story showed up only 14 different places and not one of them was a main stream media outlet. This is why Al Gore and his congregation will never have any credibility with me. Everyone always says that if you are a global warming denier that you work for an evil corporation or an oil company. The fact of the matter is that the so called "scientific community consensus" that said we are causing global warming need garnt money to continue their "reasearch". If they come out and say it doesn't exist, they get no money and the got no job. So using the same logic of the global warming fanatics, your "scientists" are just as evil as the oil companies. Man made global warming is the biggest hoax ever pulled on mankind, and guess who is postured to make a killing off of his faithful little followers? Gore already is investing in the phony carbon offset companies just waiting to bilk you poor suckers out of your cash...and he charges tens of thousands of dollars to preach to the choir.

Chuck report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Global Warming isn't such a bad thing

Nov 16, 2007 09:53     

A little global warming isn't such a bad thing A little global cooling ( at least from the point we are at now is) consider this, each time there has been a little cooling during the period of recorded history, there has been extreme famine, disease, pandemic, and radical social change that has been negative Without sitting down and doing the research I believe that I remember that the Irish Potato Famine, The black death, and several other mass die-offs of human population have happened during the cooling periods in our collective history. As opposed to the flowering of human civilization, the Rennisance happened during the warming period after the Monder Minimum I believe Please correct me if I am wrong but isn't a slightly warmer climate an over-all good thing for Humans, and may other species?

Dan Robinson report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Re: Why doesn't this get main stream mediacover...

Nov 16, 2007 12:32     

I would just like to point out that Hodgin's comment here, "Fear and agendas..." is more evidence that he truly has an opinion on this subject, and was not merely reporting the facts. I have a real problem with the way this article was presented. The wording of even the title avers more than the findings reported in the article actually support. The findings reveal that Arctic currents are a major influence on Arctic climate over short timescales. That's it. The data was gathered over five calendar years, so in no way does it preclude other longer-term factors. This is but another piece of a huge unfinished puzzle, not some sort of definitive rebuttal of global warming. [The point of the article was that the significant melting trends seen in recent years in the Arctic regions are not solely the result of global warming. There is evidence to suggest global warming is taking place, but not at the rates the melting at the poles suggests. -Rick]

Sceptic report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Yeah, but...

Nov 16, 2007 19:07     

Dr. Wallace Broeker(sic) of Lamont Doherty (part of Columbia U) been saying for nearly 3 decades that the Artic Oscillation can get effected by global warming melting the ice pack more quickly. This injects more fresh water directly into the mix, which mucks up the circulation patterns as the densities of fresh and salt water are different. If I recall, this can carry warmer water deeper and disrupt the deep oceanic currents. That's why the Arctic Os has been fluctuating since the 70s. So Global Warming is still not ruled out. [It appears to be part of the natural cycle as there have been countless mini ice-ages and warming trends throughout Earth's history, the times when man's impact on the atmosphere was negligible. -Rick]

Jim L report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

"It amazes me how people can so blindly reject some...

Nov 16, 2007 20:26     

"It amazes me how people can so blindly reject some science and accept others.." That's simply because science is all about interpretation. Ignoring the antiscience evolution nut who previously commented, science is about looking at stuff we can observe and then making informed conclusions about it. The more we look, the more we know, the better the accuracy of the conclusions. The problem however is that man cannot look at the facts and form a conclusion without in some way inputting his own opinion of what is happening. That is why we have scientists who can't agree even tho they all have the same physical evidence. It's their presuppositions that form assumptions in the equations/logic that cause the disagreements. Being that I'm a Bible believer I use that as my presupposition. Just as an evolutionist/atheist would presuppose millions of years time scales (with no evidence other that opinionated conclusions). So with that in mind, I'm actually in support of global warming because in my scientific model it's a return to the physical conditions that existed before the iceage. As a recent article discussed (the hydrogen fuel one), all the carbon came from the same place. The coal and oil simply retain it in the ground. My scientific question (and do follow the logical conclusions to this thought please) is what was the earth like when this carbon wasn't underground locked away? Likewise, what was it like before all the ice? If you allow yourself to assume for a minute that my biblical creationist presuppositions are accurate history, then your conclusions about current observations are a whole lot different. But it's still valid science. It's just different opinions of *unprovable cause we werem't there* history.

Allan report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Salinity

Nov 17, 2007 16:14     

Ok, so the change in ocean currents are most likely caused by changes in salinity. So what's changing the salinity?
BigH2O report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Another possible climatic change mechanism

Nov 18, 2007 02:00     

Just for variety's sake (and a good excuse to have another cuppa Joe), here's a little-publicised theory for your edification or amusement (take your pick): http://www.everything-science....ew/218/98/ . (BTW, I consider myself to be a political Liberaservative, which means that I believe politicians should serve their fellow man - and not the way Damon Knight's Kanamits would do!)
Mr. Hm-m-m report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

research is always a good thing, but

Nov 18, 2007 08:33     

You mean to tell me that this explains completely why million year old glaciers are breaking up like never before? Glaciers that formed 10s of millions of years before? This simple shift in ocean currents? What about increased tornados and islands in the pacific that are dissapearing? So what about unprecidented increases CO2 concentrations? I'm still going to go with the majority of scientists who think that nonrenewable energy is the bane of stability.

vijay report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

presuppositions

Nov 19, 2007 02:25     

That position assumes they did indeed take millions of years to form Vijay. That requires all the unprovable opinions of the scientists making those age claims to actually be correct. And I doubt that very much. What if they didn't take that long to form? How long ago did we document that they existed? What if their dating methods are based on incorrect assumptions? If the ice is a recent arrival (lets randomly say 10-50 thousand years) then it would make sense for it to melt much faster than we would expect than if it was millions of years old.

Allan report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Allan

Nov 19, 2007 06:36     

Allan, educate yourself. FOLLOW the evidence instead of trying to shoe-horn it into preconceived notions for whatever silly reason. If your openmindedness stops at a thousands years old book, you disqualify yourself from the word go. To all others I would like to say a couple of things: 1) don't attack the science on the basis of what is reported in the idiotic mass media (that also goes for iceages reported in Time or whatever; mass media is about SELLING) 2) show some humility instead of arrogantly concluding that you "looked at the evidence yourself, and it is not convincing", or that you found this or that little anomaly that goes against your idea of global warming. It's another way of stating that thousands of independent scientists from all over the world who spend their life studying climate are idiots, or part of a conspiracy that dwarfs any 9/11 conspiracy nuttiness, while YOU know BETTER (yeah, right!) Science is the BEST process we have to figure things out, and has been proving this over the last 500 years. Let it go through its proper motions. 3) if you take it for possible that thousands of trained scientists from all over the world maintain a myth "to keep their grant money", how could you at the same time buy so easily into a "Global Warming Myth-scenario" pushed by a couple of conservative think tanks sponsored by oil and energy industry? Tip: think smoking and the cigarette industry. Collective corruption and/or incompetence of the majority of a scientific field exists in fantasy land, not in reality. It's much too complex to maintain, and, by the way, the financial incentives behind it are totally dwarfed by the money that is involved on the other side of the debate.

knowitall report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Better safe than sorry

Nov 19, 2007 12:26     

The truth is we really don't know if global warming is real or not. Personally I believe it is and find it hard to understand how someone could actually think it isn't, but whatever thats not what I'm here to talk about. The thing is we aren't really sure, and the existence of global warming isn't some crackpot theory like "the center of the earth is made of chocolate" (Note: I don't think any scientist has ever made that claim) it's a credible theory, which may be right or wrong, but you must respect the merits of the research. The thing is if we decided to do something about it and cut pollution whats the worst that happens....the air and water is cleaned up which may not effect the climate but everyone will agree it has a negative affect on health and some large companies loose a lot of money by implementing pollution control features...while this would be bad it isn't nearly as bad as the scenario of doing nothing and having the world fall apart on us if in fact global warming is he threat some think it is.

John report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

AlGore causes global warming

Nov 19, 2007 23:21     

The mainstream press will never cover this because it flies in the face of the liberal position that says America is bad and causing global warming. AlGore getting the Nobel is akin to me getting a 5 year contract in the NFL as a wideout with my 6.5. speed and 40 something life experience. By the way he shared it with some Inuit activist up north, so go figure. Something else that gets lost in the "debate" is the fact that the Earth is on the warm end of a 10,000 year orbital cycle that is where the Earth's orbit is nearly circular around the sun as opposed to the egg orbit it starts with back when coincidently we had our last ice age. Algore couldn't even tell the truth in his "documentary" when he said that 05 was the hottest year on record when the year was actually back in the 30's. 2005 isn't in the top 10. Why let a little thing like the facts get in the way when you have a willing accomplice in the press to never call you on the facts. You can't point to 10,20,50, or a 100 years to make your "point". I remember when I was a kid in the early 70's when the protesters where out picketing because we were going to cause an ice age if we didn't do something. Looks like we did something. (

Owen report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

How science works

Nov 20, 2007 00:54     

This is how science works. The global warming people make predictions, the anti global warming people make predictions. Give it a bit of time. One side has its predictions validated. The other side makes excuses. Global warming is caused by more than one thing. Very few reputable scientists will disagree that CO2 emissions are a large factor. I would be very surprised if deforestation in South America was not another factor.

RalfTheDog report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

qualifications

Nov 20, 2007 01:13     

Who said I wasn't actually a scientist? There are many Bible based scientists contributing to scientific learning and discovery. In the past there were great scientists like Isaac Newton. Even Albert Einstein (not a christian himself) recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. Are you more qualified than they to determine proper scientific conclusions? There are more christian scientists out there than commonly known. They are the ones who do the work and are always swept under the rug because of their beliefs, while their work goes on display if it is worth anything. An evolutionist scientist would be able to contest such things of their own research. Christians aren't given that option. Nobody listens. For your information knowitall, you do not. I am indeed well educated on such topics regardless of your opinion to the contrary. That is just another illustration of how an opinion doesn't contribute to what truth actually is.

Allan report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

thats true john in fact...

Nov 20, 2007 04:08     

just see this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...s/sf.swf i mean whats the big deal, if its not true all well and good, but even if it is not true, are we doing something wrong if we stop or rather decrease co2 emissions?(for example) no!(as far as i know) so if this problem imminent or not, who cares!
ac report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Stasis

Nov 20, 2007 15:03     

Anyone really think Earth's climate should be in stasis? Earth's been colder; Earth's been hotter; Earth's had less CO2; Earth's had more CO2. The logical end of the Global Warming scare is for humans to "take over" control of the Earth's climate and endeavor to "reduce mankind's impact" through additional intervention by mankind. Not an easy task, but eventually possible to some extent. I hope our climate models are better by then, 'cause otherwise we will yo-yo the climate at least as much as "mother nature."

Hank report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Global Warming, what a crackpot

Nov 20, 2007 16:07     

Google "Global Cooling" and read those old 70th article about the immenent climate cooling and its drastic affects. Think about it. The earth is billions of years old. Our knowledge of its climatic history is very limited. Even taking the earth core samples will only shed only a fraction of its earlier life. From what we see. The only thing that was certain is that earth goes through a cycle of warming and cooling. So how do we know what is the optimal temperature for earth? It is pretty arrogant for some looser full of hot air to proclaim the debate is "over" and he alone shall determine what the "real" temperature that the earth shall be. Global Warming: it is the new hippy slogan. Much like those of the "make love, not war"... from a bygone era. Damn hippies. I hate them so.

Jerry report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

re: ac

Nov 20, 2007 16:15     

That is the problem with you fanatical nutcases. You justify your action, lies, violence, and hatred because "the end justifies the means." Am I right? Have it ever occured to you that just by logical reasoning and preaching the good benefits, it may just accomplish the same goal? Most people wants less smog, cleaner air, more trees, and more hair under your armpits. As long as it does not require too much sacrafice, people are all for it. Your scare tatics may just actually turn lots of them against you.

Jerry report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

salinity

Nov 20, 2007 20:17     

There is very little salt in the Artic ice....as it melts it dilutes the % of salt in the ocean area where it melts....
frogman report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Allan II

Nov 22, 2007 03:34     

Allan, not the place here to debate this in detail, but a couple of points: - great scientists of the 16th to 19th century being Christians is nothing much to go by. Nearly everybody was, or was considered to be, Christian or at least of some religion. It's a pretty meaningless statement. Let's not start about Einstein, who repeatedly stated that he did NOT believe in a personal "God" of any kind despite people with an agenda continuously claiming such. A recent survey of top-scientists (Nobel-prize winners and such) in the US showed that more than 90% were leaning towards atheism. - "Bible based" science/scientists is SO wrong as a starting concept that I don't know where to begin. I'm not saying that Christians or other religious people can't be good scientists, but they sure have to keep their work seperated from their religion. Something which is easier in some fields than in others, if you don't want to get into a serious cognitive dissonance. To finish, I wonder how many people who criticize the consensus here, have ever read even a single page of the climate reports released by the UN. I have a pretty good idea of the answer...

knowitall report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

re: knowitall

Nov 28, 2007 20:16     

A climatic report by UN? Woah, it must be super accurate. Since when do we trust a report published by a bunch of lying, stealing, heartless, and gutless bastards? When was the last time the UN accomplished anything meaningful?
Jerry report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Jerry

Nov 29, 2007 04:40     

That fallacy is called "poisoning the well", a form of "ad hominem" If you find any valid arguments, let me know ;-)
knowitall report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

@knowitall

Nov 29, 2007 16:18     

I'm a Christian, and I have to agree with you. Because religion is based almost entirely on faith, it is not a good starting point for science. I absolutely believe in God, and as far as I'm concerned nobody can disprove His existence to me, but there is never going to be a way for me to scientifically prove His existence to anyone, either. It is necessary to base science soley on that which can be tested and proven, which is why I am in agreement with you. At the same time, I don't think that means it is necessary to be an atheist to practice good science. (I realize that is not what you were saying, I just wanted to make that point.) One's beliefs don't have to have a bearing on evidence they produce in a scientific study.

Mac report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

All BS

Nov 29, 2007 17:22     

I'm with Jerry on this one. Everyone here wants clean water and fresh air but the retards who want that at the cost of the economy and competitiveness against China and Russia are idiots. They think they're citizens of "mother Earth." Please, this reeks of paganism and tree hugging worship. The Earth can take care of itself, thanks. Why not focus on the real fanatic islamonuts (want proof it's real? I got 2 big holes in my neighborhood) who want all of us banging our heads on korans 20 hours a day?

Al_Frick1234 report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

nonsense

Nov 29, 2007 18:30     

I love this planet and I really got scared when I saw Al Gore movie...until I found out by accident that the environment has been used as an excuse for decades to jump start a new world order.. yeah, that one George H. W. Bush talked about... Than I found out Gore used fake graphs in the movie,etc... Anyway, the planet was much hotter than today, it has been prooven... Why do you think Greenland was called that? No Ice back then. :) They also found out that total CO2 is less than 4% of the greenhouse gases. and from those 4% only 3% is the fault of men. So, in reality CO2 made by men has less than 1% impact on earth. Besides, CO2 doesn't rise earth temperatures, it's the other way around... fuck you Al Gore and nwo agenda!

Sin report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0