"no scientist has ever proven CO2 effects Earth's atmosphere."
Meanwhile, human-caused climate change is an observed fact.
1. The Antarctic sea ice extent has increased by a record extent this year.
2. The Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007.
3. Polar bears are thriving.
4. Sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping.
5. Cholera and Malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions.
6. Mount Kilimanjaro melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover.
7. Global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more.
8. Deaths due to extreme weather are radically declining.
9. Global tropical cyclone activity is near historic low
10. The frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined.
11. The oceans are missing their predicted heat content.
12. Big tornados have dramatically declined since the 1970s.
13. Droughts are not historically unusual.
Soooo, what human-caused climate change are you referring to, exactly?"It's a typical selection of denialists claims, and in fact, Google Searches come up with pages worth of cloned articles on each of these sound-bites - the trail points towards Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and pals being the original authors, and now, with their followers they sure have figured out how to wallpaper the internet.
... not to be confused with Antarctic ice shelves! (2)
For another Arctic Ice loss is about four times as great. (3)
Antarctica is a continent with 98% of the land covered by ice, and is surrounded by ocean that has much of its surface covered by seasonal sea ice. Reporting on Antarctic ice often fails to recognise the fundamental difference between sea ice and land ice.
Antarctic land ice is the ice which has accumulated over thousands of years on the Antarctica landmass through snowfall. This land ice therefore is actually stored ocean water that once evaporated and then fell as precipitation on the land.
Antarctic sea ice is entirely different as it is ice which forms in salt water during the winter and almost entirely melts again in the summer.
Importantly, when land ice melts and flows into the oceans global sea levels rise on average; when sea ice melts sea levels do not change measurably but other parts of the climate system are affected, like increased absorption of solar energy by the darker oceans.
To summarize the situation with Antarctic ice trends:
- Antarctic land ice is decreasing at an accelerating rate
- Antarctic sea ice is increasing despite the warming Southern Ocean
"... Despite the fact that the southern ice pack is larger overall than the northern, its increases are much smaller than the decreases noted for the northern hemisphere, 1.96 million km^2 in extent and 1.92 million km^2 of area. This puts the lie to claims (oft repeated) that southern gain even “almost” balances northern loss — the northern extent loss is 3.4 times as great as the southern extent gain while northern area loss is 3.8 times as great as southern area gain. When one is nearly 4 times as big as another, they are certainly not “balanced” and anyone who claims so is either a fool or an outright liar. ..."
Loss of Muli-year Arctic Sea Ice, 1987 - Present
"First of all, a few points need to be made about polar bear numbers:
- Nobody really knows how many bears there were in the 1950s and 1960s. Estimates then were based on anecdotal evidence provided by hunters or explorers and not by scientific surveys.
- Polar bears are affected by several factors, including hunting, pollution and oil extraction. Most notably, hunting, particularly following the introduction of snowmobiles, airplanes and ice breakers, led to a huge decline in certain subpopulations. The introduction of the International Agreement on the Conservation of Polar Bears in 1973, which restricted or even banned hunting in some circumstances, consequently resulted in an increase in polar bear numbers.
With this caveat in mind, what do the figures actually say? According to a 2009 report by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group, of the 19 recognised subpopulations of polar bears, 8 are in decline, 1 is increasing, 3 are stable and 7 don’t have enough data to draw any conclusions. Figure 1 below compares the data for 2005 and 2009."
- Not all subpopulations are affected to the same degree by climate change, and while some subpopulations are well studied, for others there is insufficient data to make broad statements about current and past numbers.
"... Things today are more certain. In its latest report, released on September 27, the IPCC finally could and did put a number on ice flow from the poles. The result was an estimate of sea level rise of 28 to 98 centimeters (a maximum of more than three feet) by 2100 — more than 50 percent higher than the 2007 projections. ..."
"... The areal extent of Kilimanjaro's ice cover has decreased ≈85% from 12.06 km2 in 1912 to 1.85 km2 in 2007. Linear extrapolation of ice extent to the time axis [1912 to 2007, R2 = 0.98; Fig. 2 Inset] suggests that the glaciers will disappear from the summit of Kibo in 2022. In view of the likely (but unknown) errors in the determinations of the ice area at each epoch, a straight-line fit to all available values seems justified.
However, an argument can be made for a “better” fit to the data by fitting two straight lines to account for the apparent change in rate of area decrease beginning in 1976. Slightly better correlation coefficients are obtained (R2 = 0.998 for 1912 to 1976 and 0.994 for 1976 to 2007) and the predicted disappearance of the ice occurs in 2033. In either case there is a strong likelihood that the ice fields will disappear within a decade or two if current conditions persist. ..."
"Kilimanjaro's shrinking northern glaciers, thought to be 10,000 years old, could disappear by 2030, researchers said here yesterday (Dec. 12) at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union.
The entire northern ice field, which holds most of Kilimanjaro\'s remaining glacial ice, lost more than 140 million cubic feet (4 million cubic meters) of ice in the past 13 years, said Pascal Sirguey, a research scientist at the University of Otago in New Zealand. That\'s a cube measuring roughly 520 feet (158 m) on each side.
The loss in volume is approximately 29 percent since 2000, while the total surface area lost is 32 percent, Sirguey said. Last year, the ice field split in two, revealing ancient lava that may not have seen the sun for millennia. [Video: Kilimanjaro's Shrinking Glaciers "
but it is not the "global temperature."
This claim is based on cherry-picking the "EM-DAT’s International Disaster Database" - the document is worth a look. While you're there, check out the other data they've collected: http://www.emdat.be/disaster-trends
It's a complex issue that can't be understood by an over simplified sound-bite. We can't grasp this stuff while ignoring all difficult aspects of this question.
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA
Sept. 3, 2008; Last Revised January 30, 2013
A little extra heat, a little extra moisture, add in some sea level rise, and look what can happen.
Even more important: How can we seriously prepare when so many demand to remain ignorant of these down to earth facts?
There is nothing deceptive or "alarmist" in his report - these people are dedicated to getting everything right. And it never totally happens, but they get damn close and they pay attention to their mistakes (as opposed to hiding from them) and they learn from their mistakes always getting yet sharper.
Who's kidding who?! Scientists and technicians don't have the time to play with the numbers, and if they did, it would be obvious to the first critical observer.
In real science, it's about getting all the technical stuff right.
"The ongoing difficulty of accurately measuring the Earth's ocean heat content has led to premature "skeptic" claims about ocean cooling. A recent paper Von Schuckmann & Le Traon (2011) put the kibosh on ocean cooling claims. They find that from 2005 to 2010 the global oceans (10 to 1500 metres down) have continued to warm, although they caution that their result is based on the assumption that there are no more systematic errors in the data gathered from ARGO floats which measure ocean heat. ..."
The scientific current consensus, that is understanding, is that there are too many variables in observations past and present to make a firm call one way or the other.
Prepared by Robert H. Johns, Jeffry S. Evans, and Stephen F. Corfidi
Robust increases in severe thunderstorm environments in response to greenhouse forcing.
PNAS | Sep. 23, 2013
What happened to presenting information and staying focused on learning what we can from all the evidence we can gather?
"Scientific Consensus" as though it were an original sin.
The levels of crazy making boggle. In closing, some educated thoughts regarding the scientific consensus.