Is Global Warming Real? Evidence: The Arctic Ice Cap
84Some of the strongest evidence for global warming can be seen in the Arctic. Yet many people seem convinced that global warming is one big hoax.
Is it? What's the evidence?
This hub is part of a series on the evidence for global warming. The first hub examined global temperature records. The second hub dealt with declining snow cover. In this hub I look at the North polar ice cap and in the next, I will take a look at the Antarctic ice.
Arctic Sea ice is shrinking and getting thinner:
The image above shows a representation of data gathered by a new NASA satellite known as ICEsat. The colors represent ice thickness, which the satellite measures with lasers. Darker blue indicates thinner ice, yellow indicates thicker, with red being the thickest ice. As you can see, the ice has thinned considerably.
Larger image available here. More information available from NASA, here.
And the ice cap is not just thinning - it's shrinking too. The image below shows that more and more multiyear ice - the ice which has built up over years - is melting away each summer. Each fall and winter, the multiyear ice is replaced by thinner first year ice. The thinner ice is more vulnerable to warm temperatures and melts faster than the multiyear ice. This creates feedback effect. The thinner ice will melt faster the following year, leaving the multiyear ice more vulnerable.
Larger image available here and more information and images available here.
But - can we trust NASA? Maybe they are in on the hoax.
Well,
it's not just data from one satellite. The National Snow and Ice Data
center (NSIDC) has maintained records of Arctic sea ice measured by satellites
since the late 1970s.
And it's not just NASA satellites. Computer models, maintained by NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Links to PDF) and other scientific agencies around the world, predict sea ice declines very similar to what we have seen. In fact the observed changes over the past few years are happening faster than any of the models predicted (see also a paper by Stroeve et al, Arctic Ice Decline: Faster Than Forecast (PDF).
And it's not just NASA satellites and computer models. Other countries from Denmark to India have satellites or monitoring stations observing the Arctic Sea Ice, and the information they provide is in line with the data from NASA and the NSIDC.
- Earth Observation for Polar Monitoring from the Technical University of Denmark
- ESA - Observing the Earth - Radar altimetry confirms global warming is affecting polar glaciers
Scientists have confirmed that climate warming is changing how much water remains locked in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, according to an article published in the Journal of Glaciology. - ESA Portal - Arctic summer ice anomaly shocks scientists
Satellite images acquired from 23 to 25 August 2006 have shown for the first time dramatic openings over a geographic extent larger than the size of the British Isles in the Arctics perennial sea ice pack north of Svalbard, and extending into th - Sea Ice Data - Overview
NSIDC offers a wide variety of sea ice products derived from passive microwave sensors, visible and infrared sensors, and other sources. These Web pages are designed to help you make an educated decision about the most appropriate sea ice product for
The Arctic ice cap is well on its way to becoming ice free. This is unprecedented in the past million years (Arctic system on trajectory to new, seasonally ice-free state Overpeck et. al 2005).
Such a change would have dramatic effects on ocean and wind patterns, with unpredictable effects on global weather.
The rapid declines of the past decade might be explained in part by recurring changes in local conditions, namely the Beaufort Gyre and the Arctic Oscillation. This raises the possibility that Arctic sea ice might recover somewhat in the next decade as the two patterns shift. However, the evidence points to a continuing decline for the rest of the century. For an excellent overview of the causes of the recent decline, and reasons why the ice is likely to continue to shrink, visit this link and scroll to the bottom subsection, Decline Causes
CommentsLoading...
Thanks Ron. Find me an agent! :)
Dammit, William, you got me convinced. Boy am I bummed. LOL
great post.
Nothing like a few facts. Keep 'em coming.
hi william,
scary stuff, thanks for all your hard work.
Carolina Muscle - anytime I can ruin your day man, anytime... xD
Thank you Ralph and Blue Dog!
Keep going, William - I hope you get lots of on the fence readers and get them convinced!
CLear, reasoned and insightful. Thanks William all these hubs are a great resource particularly with your referencing.
Regarding your charts "Trend in Winter Sea Ice Thickness" and "Trend in Winter Sea Ice Volume":
It's a five year sample. Statistically it means less than nothing.
What's happening at the other pole?
"The Arctic ice cap is well on its way to becoming ice free."
That conclusion cannot possibly be reached by observing a 5 year sample. The ice could begin to thicken next week; unless you can pinpoint the direct cause of the melting, you can't claim that the process will continue or not continue.
Nicomp - thanks for pointing that out. I've added a graph showing the decline since 1978. As you can see, it's more than a five year trend.
As for the conclusion that the ice cap will be ice free - that is not my conclusion, but the conclusion of numerous scientists who are studying the data. Check the links I provided.
Cally2 - thanks! I'm trying to document this as clearly and authoritatively as possible.
All the ice in the Arctic Ice Cap is less than 10% of the ice on the planet...
"Antarctica is 99.6% covered in ice, and contains 90% of all ice on the planet." - http://www.polarconservation.org/information/antar
Antarctic Snowfall Has Doubled Since 1850
http://www.iceagenow.com/Antarctic_Snowfall_Has_Do
A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850 - http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032529
"The Real Facts on Increasing Antarctic Ice" - http://www.ecoworld.com/climate/the-real-facts-on-
Thanks Nicomp - I'm researching my hub on Antarctica right now.
Obviously the 'globe' is not getting warmer. Portions of the globe may be warming, but given that Antarctic ice is accumulating rather than declining...
Hi Nicomp - I just published the next hub in this series dealing with the Antarctic.
As a matter of fact, Arctic sea ice is increasing in area, but the land ice is melting. Land ice is what will contribute to rising sea levels.
Overall Antarctica has lost ice mass.
The news reports on this, from both sides of the climate change fence, can be confusing, misleading or sensational. But, despite some areas that show no warming trend, or thickening ice, overall Antarctica is warming and losing ice.
Great hub, but I must say that we need to decide the truth of all the facts. Is what is occurring natural and cyclical or man made. Before we tax people to death, let's get it right. We need to fix our economy first and then turn to other important issues. I'll keep reading.
Thank you Breakfastpop! Once I'm done with this series on evidence for warming, I plan on a hub or two about the evidence that ties CO2 emissions to this current warming. If I don't burn out first. Heh. I hope you enjoy this and future hubs, and find them to be informative. Thanks for reading.
Nicomp posted:
"All the ice in the Arctic Ice Cap is less than 10% of the ice on the planet...
"Antarctica is 99.6% covered in ice, and contains 90% of all ice on the planet." - http://www.polarconservation.org/information/antar
Antarctic Snowfall Has Doubled Since 1850
http://www.iceagenow.com/Antarctic_Snowfall_Has_Do
A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850 - http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2008/2007GL032529
"The Real Facts on Increasing Antarctic Ice" - http://www.ecoworld.com/climate/the-real-facts-on-"
Hi Nicomp, I took a closer look at the links you provided.
The first link merely states the fact that Antarctica contains around 90% of the ice mass of the entire planet, and doesn't say anything about warming.
The second and third links are basically the same - one is to a paper, the second is to a blogpost about that paper.
The paper itself doesn't disprove global warming - in fact, the IPCC predicted that precipitation would increase in Antarctica as a result of the Greenhouse effect.
In the final link you provide, the author confuses sea ice extent with ice mass. Whoops.
Hi again! I had to chuckle here - 'are the NASA in on the hoax?' How did you know what I was thinking?!!
You certainly put a lot of work into your hubs - good for you!
Thank you for noticing Apricot!
Another great hub.Enjoyed it very much.
Thank you very much Oldenuf!
I'm rather surprised that this series has attracted so little negative response. Those in denial are seemingly enraged by rational, factual and pragmatic presentations. Such sensible discourse usually attracts droves of ranting ideologues who can't bear the thought of changing the "non-negotiable" amerikan way of life.
I applaud your efforts and urge you to continue.
Thank you CWB - the ranting seems to have taken place mostly on the forums.
Not much arguing to be done with facts, anyway. Most of the skeptics' arguments have been refuted by scientists, and the proof is only a google search away.
Those who rely on blogs for all their information will never know the truth, but if one digs a little deeper, authoritative, high quality information is out there.
Out there in abundance William, yet grossly ignored in favor of complacency.
Recall The Ozone Hole? Supposedly, pollution was causing the ozone layer to break down. So, NASA sent a satellite over the Antartic to observe the Ozone Hole. Well, it turns out that it occilates and man had absolutely nothing to do with the natural phenomena. My first major in college was Environmental Science. We were taught that without a doubt, man's pollution was causing a Global Ice Age. The top scientist, research centers, ect gaurateed it. Trillions of dollars are at stake and corrupt men and women have much to gain through scientific fraud. Google Time Magazine's Global Cooling. Weird Al Gore who is making tens of millions in selling and investing in Carbon Credits, the same guy who owns high sulfur coal mines, steel plants, and a slum lord who has had the last few years of his U.S.Climate Summit postponed to freezing inclimate weather. Europe is in a deep freeze as I write " Big freeze kills at least 80 across Europe"
Natural events such as volcanoes, orbit occilations, solar flux, ect has and will continue to dictate climatic variations. Pencil whipping data to make money and con artist games from the Y2K scare to the AIDS scare has made many wealthy. Question EVERTHING! Trust NO ONE! Research with an open mind and donot be a sheep following each othe roff the cliff. Its your future and when future generations are enjoying colder summers, they will laugh at the gullibilities of thier ancestors.
I guess I spoke to soon William.
And this guy doesn't even have the nerve to put up any hubs of his own for others to read and comment on.
In 1984, when the scientific community were still debating if we were still in the Global Cooling or heading towards Global Warming, the International Ice Patrol reported over 2,200 different icebergs. The Global Warming Advocates claimes this was direct evidence of melting ice caps.
In 2008, there were ZERO ice bergs reported. This was on the Weather Channel's series " When Weather Changed History" , " The Sinking Of The Titanic ". Aired December 27th, 2009.
Mortgagestar:
Not sure what a lack of icebergs constitutes evidence of.
However, the IIP only monitors major Atlantic shipping lanes. See here:
http://www.uscg-iip.org/General/mission.shtml
It seems to me that no icebergs in the IIP's area of operations would indicate declining sea ice, but I'm not going to make a definitive claim about it.
Wrote an article some time ago about melting polar ice packs and positive feedback. As the reflective white polar ice melts it exposes more dark ocean water to absorb more solar energy, which melts more polar ice and so on.Pretty soon you have a runaway situation that is just beyond human control.It's called a tipping point. Like it or not it's time to be worried.
I will not pretend to know what I’m talking but Rex Murphy does. Have a listen.
Chris, I encourage you to read my other hubs about global warming. I have a hub about climategate as well. Although it's written with a satirical tone, it has some links to articles that examine the emails and the science.
The science is solid, politics aside. CO2 causes global warming. The earth is, in fact, warming. And we have more CO2 in the atmosphere, which will lead to even more warming.
I only know that this world is like a hamster cage and the hamsters have not evolved enough to clean their own cage. Soon we will be up to our eyeballs in droppings and all the water is going to be turned to urine on the floor. All of the Hamsters want to make their own path and no one hamster ever seems to be able to lead long enough to make a difference.
The scientists are playing politics with this global warning issue and heads should roll. Any lie, any misinformation from official sources should be subject to fines and loss of credentials.
A sign placed wrongly in the road will most likely get you in a place you had not intended to be. The result is lost time, money spent getting nowhere and the frustration of having to go over everything again.
Well said, Chris. Thanks for reading and commenting.
I think we have to concern with our earth. Prevent is better than healing. Global warming just not an issue. The major disaster is waiting for us. Don't underestimate the global warming. I get nice information here. good research.
Thanks for reading prasetio.
Hi William!
I read this part of your series on Global Warming and clearly you've done a lot of research. I found it interesting and I am going to read the others that you've written (we'll see how/if it changes my views). I'm one of those people who I guess you could say does not believe global warming/climate change is a hoax, but feel it is something that is being overexagerrated/ basically hijacked by the government/special interests as an excuse to raise taxes on the public and help to line certain businesses and peoples (ex: AL Gore's) pockets. I believe climate change is real but I don't think it is something that is soley "man made" or that our government should be investing billions of dollars on trying to reverse its effects.
I'm not a climate expert by any means, but I did take an Energy in the Environment course in college. One of the things we talked about in my class what that the Earth throughout its history has gone through many cyclic changes in climate and that currently we are coming out of a mini ice age (and when the earth comes out of an ice age CO2 levels rise causing trends toward warmer climate). For example I think it's cool to learn that my state of Illinois was as one time under the ocean, at one time a swampland, and at another time sculpted by glaciers.
I don't doubt that man has played a partial role in increasing/decreasing the rate of climate change an a small scale, but in the end history shows that the Earth's climate will evolve no matter what, so at least in my view at the most we're only investing billions of dollars in delaying the inevitable. Throughout it's history mankind has learned to adapt to these changes so I think we're just going to need to learn to do it again.
But anyways, like I said I'm going to read the other hubs you've written! Looking forward to it.
Thank you MHilbert! I hope my hubs are informative.
Regarding CO2 and past temperature change - it's worth pointing out that over the past 20 million years (according to the latest research) CO2 levels have never gone over 280 ppm. We are now at 380 ppm and rising.
As for solutions - I don't really have clearly formed opinions on that. I do believe that we are causing the current change in climate and the only question is, how much change will we see - but I'm not sure what the best answer is.
Thank you for reading and commenting - I look forward to reading your other comments and I wish you the best of luck with your work at school.
Just passing through, but thought I'd like at least to say that: POLLUTION is real; DEFORESTATION is real; the threat to the world's water supply is real. The inherent compromises that have to be made potentially or actually dealing with oil-rich nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran, and with Chavez, are real.
So, in a way I think that the global warming debate distracts from the things I just listed above... which are NOT controversial..
The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.
Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.
According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-124
Mortgagestar - I've seen this around the web but haven't looked into it for myself. I doubt if it actually contradicts the AGW theory.
As for the part about the arctic ice increasing since 2007 - yes, it has. But 2007 was a record low, and so despite the increase, we still have less ice than the average over the past 30 years.
Its sort of like pointing to temperatures since 1998 and saying that temperatures haven't risen in 10 years. 1998 was a huge spike in temperature, so the past 10 years have been the warmest on record - even though, yes, temperature has barely creeped upwards in the decade since.
Thanks for dropping by and leaving the link - I'll take a look and might post a hub about it! I always appreciate getting new ideas.
Adsense - thanks for the comment. As you know, I agree with you on that one.
Mr. Wilson, I am not qualified to say if the ice is melting. I just don't have the tools etc. I am convinced that our habits, lifestyles, etc. are having a negative impact that will affect a lot of "life". If anyone should disagree a simple test can be done easily. A person could start their car up in a garage or another closed area and sit there for a time until the light is seen. We do not have unlimited space, air, filtering, etc. so I think this is a reasonable test. We can't keep screwing with the planet and expect it to take care of us. I love the analogy by chrismarva. Thanks
Right on Micky. There are more than 6 billion of us, and we all need food and places to live. We certainly do have an impact! Thank you for reading.
There is also evidence which say that Global Warming is not occuring. Why else would many scientists from all fields step forward and say that it is a hoax. Furthermore, Global Warming is more of a scam put forth by a leftist environmentalists. Their agenda is anti human in the inner workings. These same deluded people also said that in 2000, we would be under hundreds of feet of water.
Marquis - I have written several hubs about the evidence for global warming. I hope you will continue reading.
The evidence is pretty strong, and the opposing view is very often driven by PR firms and the need of the media for controversy. Of course there are uncertainties.
I hope that you will look at the evidence I've assembled here and come to a different conclusion! Thanks for reading and commenting.
Most people by now shouild be aware of Weird Al Gore's claims of inventing the internet and "Love Story" was written about him & Tipper. What most people don't know is his hypocrisy towards the environment from his non Earth friendly mansion to his ownership of coal mines and a steel factory that has been repeatedly fined by the E.P.A.
He is making millions from his carbon credits while enjoying his limosines and jet fuel private planes. The Tennessean Democrat newspaper also exposed his dealings a a slum lord and his inherited fortune from his late father, Al Gore Sr, a noted racist from the Jim Crow U.S. Senate from the 1940's through the 1960's. Here is a great site of " Weird Al's " comments over the years. You won't se this on the liberal sites or mainstream meadia though.
hi william,
i find it really interesting n hope u will keep us updated like ths only.......
keep rocking
Mortgagestar: Why are skeptics so hung up on Al Gore?
Thank you Shalini - I'll try to write more about this, but I'm taking a break from the subject for a while!
Hey William, you might as well join in on the contrast: http://hubpages.com/hub/FIVE-Glaring-Reasons-To-Di
Global warming is real, with or without CO2 debates.
Swing over and add to the comments, since you support GW much like I have, to this anti-humanoid-warming post by Robert Kernodle.
OD - Robert has already alerted me to his post and I've taken one look at it but not in depth. Robert is a very thoughtful guy, and I respect his opinion and writing very much, so I'll be taking my time in making any comments. I want to make sure I've got my ducks in a row!
Robert and I had a very interesting conversation over on my hub CO2 Causes Global Warming, Here's How We Know. He started out asking why I didn't factor in water vapor as a much larger driver of climate change. I explained it to him and he did eventually change his mind about it. So he's not a rabid denialist, just an open minded skeptic.
Yeah, I agree on the open minded part. I like Robert's work thus far. Maybe that's why I follow both of ya! I simply thought you might want to dive into it a little quicker. You must forgive me, for I'm highly intuitive; that's all...
Hi William,
... and I quote NSIDC,
"Meanwhile, the March 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was much above the 1979-2000 mean. This was the largest sea ice extent in March (28.6% above the 1979-2000 mean) over the 30-year historical period, surpassing the previous record set in 1994 by 10.9%. Sea ice extent for March has increased at a rate of 4.2%/decade."
SEE Graph:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008
The northern hemisphere is only part of the story. The southern hemisphere seems to be in an opposite trend, making the whole trend positive (no?) rather than negative.
Again, I am just trying to get at the real truth.
By the way, I did not really change my mind about the CO2 vs water vapor dominance, I just admitted that my line of evaluating the feedbacks was a bit naive at the time. I have since grown wiser, and still maintain that water vapor is underrepresented in ITS OWN FEEDBACK with itself via the also UNDERrepresented feedback of suns increasing activity as a driver via galactic cosmic rays.
It gets even more interesting, as the whole solar system is beginning to pass through a galactic magnetic field that could have further driving effects even on this.
Much work to do. Damn it, I thought I was done (^__^).
Robert
Robert - I deleted the two comments that seemed to be extra. I don't think I deleted any of the information you were trying to get across.
As for the antarctic - have you looked at the current sea ice area as well as the extent? Because what I thought was going on last time I looked was that the ice was spreading out and getting thinner, so to speak.
But it's true that Antarctica is a strange case.
As for hubpages - I've been having trouble all day. I think their servers are acting glitchy. I'll be taking some screengrabs of all my hubs to back them up...
Willam,
Thanks for deleting my trash. Please tidy up anytime you need to. I just deleted one of my own complainy comments from my FIVE-Glaring-Reasons .... hub.
I need to do more study on the sea ice question you asked.
I get the sense (from a quick scan of my current sources) that the whole glacier/sea ice picture is more complex than any specific glacial region or restricted group of regions can indicate.
Lots of glaciers are not catalogued (as I understand it) so an incomplete picture exists in the data itself. Also, the overall trend from pre-industrial times seems ignored. This means that the slope of the line that indicates loss started long before the CO2 levels went up, and that slope is continuing from a previous trend, NOT starting a new trend just because people started comparing it to CO2 AFTER the trend was already in effect.
More later.
Robert
Interesting seeing the polls, surveys, and opinions of people around the world on Global Warming since the scandals of repeated scientific data had been doctored to appease the Global Warming Community. Many of these scientist have and are testifying they were threaten to alter thier findings or lose thier jobs. The Global Summit was a total disaster and out of the more than 180 countries loooking for free handouts had less than two dozen willing to sign the agreement. President Obama struck out there as well.
The tide has turned against the trend as more and more people are connecting the dots. There was a potential of trillions of dollars being doled out with questionable entities and scam/con artist.
The reason why so many people bring up Al Gore? Because he was the main proponent in this hoax. He is the epitome of hypocrisy when it comes to what he claims and what he does. It caught up to him in the presidential elections just like John Edwards of being a family man and not a typical money grubbing ambulance chaser.
I just saw a piece on CNN where some of the Global Warming crowd claims that the Ozone Hole is repairing itself and because of this, will contribute to more global warming. WTF? Slick Willy Clinton ( now there's an honest guy ) claims the recent cooling trend is Mother Earth fighting Global Warming!
I just wondered what your thoughts were on the link below showing a slight increase in artic ice.
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2009/12/16/arc
I also find this interesting.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/Vikings/voyage/subset/greenl
It demonstrates that in the year 1,000 approx Greenland sustained a thriving agriculture including grapes, grains, and dairy industry. These settlements are currently frozen solid in either glaciers or permafrost. Remember this was before the industrial revolution, internal combustion engine etc and not environmental catastrophe. Just wondered what your thoughts were.
Excellant Research, Global Warming will be with us awhile, Maybe one day, we'll figure out away to at least persuade the masses to at least take an interest to whats happening and remove from thier personell world the use of all products that contribute to Global Warming. Then maybe our Industries and Goverments will join in. Hubs like these sure help to educate all of us to the truth and realities that stand before us.
Mother Nature has a say and the "Global Warmist" will ignor her. Let's look at the Laws Of Nature and the Laws Of Physics.
Volcanic events contributing to climatic fluxuations.
Impacts of Volcanic Gases on Climate, the Environment, and People
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 97-262
By Kenneth A. McGee, Michael P. Doukas, Richard Kessler, and Terrence M. Gerlach
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1997/of97-262/of97-262.htm
Volcano activity and the "Nuclear Winters"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter
Recently, we see the Earth is releasing tens of millions tons of methane producing greenhouse "pollutants".
Arctic Methane Release May Already Approach 14-19 Million Tons/Year From Thermokarst Lakes - SciAm
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboa
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=m
Solar activity has the most impact of climate..PERIOD!
The 11-year Sun spot cycle (the Hale cycle) may also be discernible in the climate record (see Solar variation).
Climate cycles are popular with media. One example is a 2003 study on the correlation between wheat prices and sunspot numbers.[1].
There is also a 1,500-year climate cycle claimed from ice core samples, and used in the global warming controversy.
Other than the Milankovich cycles (and perhaps the Hale cycle), no climate cycle is found to be perfectly periodic and a Fourier analysis of the data does not give a sharp spectrum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle
Cosmic events also have a proven trck record on Earth's climate chnges, often abruptly.
Abrupt climate change induced by comets and asteroids during human history.http://cosmictusk.com/material-found-in-bogs-indic
More planetary trends:Climate Change Reflects Natural Planetary Events
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cycles/cha
The multitrillion dollar fraud known as "Global Warming" is actually the redistribution of wealth ...Globally. We see huge amounts of dollars going to studies and professors to prove the existence of man made climate change and corrupt politicians cashing in on scare tactics. More and more pencil whipping scandals and exposed agaendas are comming to light from the hipocrites like Weird Al Gore jet setting and still running his fossil fuel companies and unfriendly mansion to scientist getting "gifts" and academia corruption for personal interest. Research Al Gore's financial portfolio of Occidental Oil and his coal mines in Tennesse as well as his factories. I remember when my professors lived modestly and now they live as celebrities, in part to grants and kickbacks as well as self serving greed. As students are getting financially raped, the academia are silent.
William,
Are you bothered at all by the recent revelations of misrepresented findings, questionable research, withheld data that didn't agree with the consensus within the global warming community? The one thing that bothers me is this idea of consensus among scientists. In the business world, its known as collusion. Let me know your thoughts.
Matt
Matt - I'm not bothered at all, because the supposed crimes by the scientists don't measure up. There is a mountain of evidence that CO2 warms the globe. The science goes back for more than a century. Have you read all the parts of this series that I've written?
National Geographic on the Iceland Volcanos. Could cause global devastation!!!
There's a whole lotta lyin' been goin' on!
Published on Tuesday, March 30, 2010 by The Guardian/UK
US Oil Company Donated Millions to Climate Sceptic Groups, Says Greenpeace
Report identifies Koch Industries giving $73m to climate sceptic groups 'spreading inaccurate and misleading information'
by John Vidal
A Greenpeace investigation has identified a little-known, privately owned US oil company as the paymaster of global warming sceptics in the US and Europe.
The environmental campaign group accuses Kansas-based Koch Industries, which owns refineries and operates oil pipelines, of funding 35 conservative and libertarian groups, as well as more than 20 congressmen and senators. Between them, Greenpeace says, these groups and individuals have spread misinformation about climate science and led a sustained assault on climate scientists and green alternatives to fossil fuels.
[Greenpeace has identified Kansas-based oil firm Koch Industries as a multimillion funder of climate sceptic groups. (Photograph: David McNew/Getty images)]Greenpeace has identified Kansas-based oil firm Koch Industries as a multimillion funder of climate sceptic groups. (Photograph: David McNew/Getty images)
Greenpeace says that Koch Industries donated nearly $48m (£31.8m) to climate opposition groups between 1997-2008. From 2005-2008, it donated $25m to groups opposed to climate change, nearly three times as much as higher-profile funders that time such as oil company ExxonMobil. Koch also spent $5.7m on political campaigns and $37m on direct lobbying to support fossil fuels.
In a hard-hitting report, which appears to confirm environmentalists' suspicions that there is a well-funded opposition to the science of climate change, Greenpeace accuses the funded groups of "spreading inaccurate and misleading information" about climate science and clean energy companies.
"The company's network of lobbyists, former executives and organisations has created a forceful stream of misinformation that Koch-funded entities produce and disseminate. The propaganda is then replicated, repackaged and echoed many times throughout the Koch-funded web of political front groups and thinktanks," said Greenpeace.
"Koch industries is playing a quiet but dominant role in the global warming debate. This private, out-of-sight corporation has become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition. On repeated occasions organisations funded by Koch foundations have led the assault on climate science and scientists, 'green jobs', renewable energy and climate policy progress," it says.
The groups include many of the best-known conservative thinktanks in the US, like Americans for Prosperity, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Foundation for research on economics and the environment. All have been involved in "spinning" the "climategate" story or are at the forefront of the anti-global warming debate, says Greenpeace.
Koch Industries is a $100bn-a-year conglomerate dominated by petroleum and chemical interests, with operations in nearly 60 countries and 70,000 employees. It owns refineries which process more than 800,000 barrels of crude oil a day in the US, as well as a refinery in Holland. It has held leases on the heavily polluting tar-sand fields of Alberta, Canada and has interests in coal, oil exploration, chemicals, forestry, and pipelines.
The majority of the group's assets are owned and controlled by Charles and David Koch, two of the four sons of the company's founder. They have been identified by Forbes magazine as the joint ninth richest Americans and the 19th richest men in the world, each worth between $14-16bn.
Koch has also contributed money to politicians, the report said, listing 17 Republicans and four Democrats whose campaign funds got more than $10,000from the company.
Greenpeace accuses the Koch companies of having a notorious environmental record. In 2000 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined Koch industries $30m for its role in 300 oil spills that resulted in more than 3m gallons of crude oil leaking intro ponds, lakes and coastal waters.
"The combination of foundation-funded front groups, big lobbying budgets, political action campaign donations and direct campaign contributions makes Koch Industries and the Koch brothers among the most formidable obstacles to advancing clean energy and climate policy in the US," Greenpeace said.
A spokeswoman for Koch Industries today defended the group's track record on environmental issues. "Koch companies have consistently found innovative and cost-effective ways to ensure sound environmental stewardship and further reduce waste and emissions of greenhouse gases associated with their operations and products," said a statement sent to AFP by Melissa Cohlmia, director of communication. She added: "Based on this experience, we support open, science-based dialogue about climate change and the likely effects of proposed energy policies on the global economy."
Top 10 Koch beneficiaries 2005-2008
Mercatus center: ($9.2m received from Koch grants 2005-2008) Conservative thinktank at George Mason University. This group suggested in 2001 that global warming would be beneficial in winter and at the poles. In 2009 they recommended that nothing be done to cut emissions.
Americans for prosperity. ($5.17m). Have built opposition to clean energy and climate legislation with events across US.
Institute for humane studies ($1.96m). Several prominent climate sceptics have positions here, including Fred Singer and Robert Bradley.
Heritage foundation ($1.62m). Conservative thinktank leads US opposition to climate change science.
Cato Insitute ($1.02m). Thinktank disputes science behind climate change and questions the rationale for taking action.
Manhattan Institute ($800,000). This institute regularly publishes climate science denials.
Washington legal foundation ($655,000) Published articles on the business threats posed by regulation of climate change.
Federalist society for law ($542,000) advocates inaction on global warming
National center for policy analysis ($130,000) NCPA disseminates climate science scepticism.
American council on science and health ($113,800) Has published papers claiming that cutting greenhouse emissions would be detrimental to public health.
© Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
Nice Ralph. Thanks.
Hello William
I would like to publish your work on my website.
I am currently revamping the blog section to inlcude guest authors
www.goinggreentoday.com
Let me know is you are interested.
Thanks and job well done
More of Mother Nature's effect on climatic events. Weird Al
Gore will tax this volcano and cash in on credits! LOL)))
Hmmmm.
Mr. Wilson I have come to the conclusion that it matters not to me whether or not global warming is true or not.
It is more important to get off of any dependence on oil period.
As a substance it damages the environment; from a practical standpoint it frees the population from economic slavery to certain unscrupulous governments.
Give me Hydrogen, ethanol, windmills, solar. Let me build a rain catcher for my cooking and cleaning needs.
Go green now.
Freedom Beckons.
Terced - I think you have hit on a secret truth! Freedom is not about how many cars and TVs you own, but about how you spend your life. Thanks for dropping by!
William
I am not convinced that there is a global warming problem, and even if there was I don't believe that we could make a difference to make it better.
China has the bulk of the world population and the bulk of he world manufacturing.
With seven billion people in the world there is bound to be changes occuring from them. We breathe in air and expel carbon dioxide. We cut down vegetation to make room to build housing, shopping centers and work places. We produce and use machines that contribute pollutants into the atmosphere.
None of that is really going to change. The US Govenment had thirty years to make changes to move away from using oil after the 1970s oil scare. They chose to do nothing and now as a result of that inaction we have not only lost our leadership in the auto industry we are now a service industry country. China is the leader in manufacturing in the world.
The US Government and California in particular are using the global warming to create more taxes. Carbon credits are a joke, but a costly one. Taxing is not a solution to any problem, and going green loses jobs. We need to get off of oil for economic reasons. Going green shouldn't mean adding MTBE to gasoline or mercury into light bulbs.
Wind, solar, dams, nuclear and even the ocean can provide clean sources of power. We lack a modern and effecient electrical grid across the country. We need to have triple tax credits to encourage the private sector to create and develop solutions. Conservation is only an interim action. The population will continue to increase and they will take their share of the resources.
We need to look at new fuel engines for commercial and military jets. These jets have more effect on the atmosphere than anything else, and there are more and bigger ones each decade.
There is also a global dimming effect caused by volcanic eruptions that cover the atmosphere with ash.
The bottom line is that there are many complex environmental cycles that affect the temperature and the weather around the world. We don't really know how to effectively interact with these cycles. We could do more damage by trying to make a change, than if we left it alone and let the change come on its own.
It is like when they added rabbits to the Australian environment to cure one problem, only to create another problem.
my opinion.... ~:)
When the scam is exposed, the tree huggers threaten to sue!
See this video on you tube and question why the gloom & doom warmist are planning to sue over this satire.
there's something weird about the 1979-2010 graph. look at the original at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea and compare it with the one within the article. they are similar, but you'll see they are not the same (the data on the one within the article are slightly worst than the original one). I'm not saying the article is not accurate, but somewhen the discrepancy was generated by someone.
Freethinker - the difference is that the chart in the article shows the anomaly from the 1978 - 2000 mean, while the chart you linked to shows the anomaly from the 1978 - 2008 mean. The data is the same, but 8 additional years of data figured into the mean (and the ice area is increasingly smaller during those 8 years) make the anomaly look smaller. But keep in mind this is anomaly from the mean we are talking about. To get a full picture you also want to look at the actual decline in area year to year.
WRW,
I have but one hub on global warming
http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-warming-is-a-LIE. as you may infer from the title i am not a believer in man made global warming - as such i am indicating the following:
I think you are a good and pursuasive writer however I am not in agreement with your findings I find it almost a strange sense of arrogance that we - "MAN" could believe we are affecting the global climate beyond what has already been done in the earth previous to this and with the recent "climate gate " findings i believe show the dishonesty in the scientists pushing the manmade global warming scinerio". Please take a peek at my hub - As I will try to check your others I look forward to discussing this further,,, I'm sure.
TH
William - Your hub is fantastic. The anti-science faction continues to have a hold on some. Much of it is led by factions who have a lot to lose by reducing the world's dependence on fossil fuels. Your evidence is well researched and presented. Check out 350.org, a group organized by none other than Tim McKibbon and very active. It's our moral responsibility to protect our planet. What is so hard to understand about that?
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5040
Trends of 1, 5, 200 years are NOTHING in a global climate cycling over 50,000 years. This is like finding a dime on the mall steps and assuming you'll be rich by dinner.
Rick D, so rational-sounding.
So wrong.
We don't just have a correlation. We have a thoroughly well-understood physical mechanism, too.
So it's more like missing your credit card, finding a pattern of faked charges on your account, and assuming you'll be poor by dinner.
Well done, William! There is a crying need for concise, well-written, visually impressive summaries of the scientific evidence such as yours. I follow many climate change blogs, so I was pleasantly surprised to find some new links in your article that I hadn't heard of. It has always struck me that the best evidence for global warming is the rapid melting of Arctic ice. There is only one way to melt ice, especially on the vast scale that is happening in the Arctic, and that is to apply heat, massive amounts of it. That heat just has to come from warming on a global scale. Anything else just wouldn't cut the mustard!
Ron 2 years ago
Will, this is an excellent series.... get it published!