August 28, 2008
The Sky Is Faling - UPDATED
Overblown headlines of Global Warming Doom really annoy me. As do dire predictions of doom based on "record" weather/climate phenomena.
Here's a headline example from the BBC
First off I'm getting really tired of "tipping points." I believe some guy named Gladwell is responsible for this over-used formulation. I supposed it's nice for him to have coined a cliche though - not many get to do that.
But what exactly does this mean for Arctic ice?
Here's the equally annoying lead:
Sounds really scary doesn't it - the second lowest level of Arctic ice ever. Humans and their carbon burning ways are destroying the planet causing year after year of record low Arctic ice levels. Humanity - or at least the industrialized population - must be stopped.
What the entire article glosses over and never explains is this phrase from the first sentence "since satellite records began." Which according to NASA - the satellite people:
Satellites have made continual observations of Arctic sea ice extent since 1978
Just looking at our calendar, that means we have no comparable reference data for the previous 1,977 years. Meaning we have data for about 2% of our calendar.
According to a study by Frank Brown, professor of geology and geophysics, dean of the College of Mines and Earth Sciences, University of Utah, Ian McDougall of Australian National University in Canberra, and anthropologist John Fleagle of New York state's Stony Brook University humans first began destroying apeared on the the planet about 195,000 years ago. Which means the satellite record that the BBC thinsks we should be so concerned about represents .02% of the known existence of homo sapiens.
In this report we learn that the oldest fossil of the venerable horseshoe crab dates back almost half a billion years.
On the horseshoe crab scale - the Arctic ice "tipping point" is based on record comprising approximately .000009% of planetary history.
But if you want to consider the satellite record of Arctic ice in terms of the existence of the planet - here's the raw data:
40 years out of 4.5 billion. You do the math.
Quite frankly, I don't see how anyone can honestly make the claim that they know what "normal" should be for Arctic ice or any aspect of the climate. I don't see how anyone can honestly look at the satellite ice record and proclaim that the second lowest ice level in 40 years is portent of impending doom.
Then again I don't understand why I still look for any level of honesty in "global warming" news.
UPDATE: Wired magazine goes for the record in headline hubris:
Idiots.
Here's a headline example from the BBC
Arctic ice 'is at tipping point'
First off I'm getting really tired of "tipping points." I believe some guy named Gladwell is responsible for this over-used formulation. I supposed it's nice for him to have coined a cliche though - not many get to do that.
But what exactly does this mean for Arctic ice?
Here's the equally annoying lead:
Arctic sea ice has shrunk to the second smallest extent since satellite records began, US scientists have revealed.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says that the ice-covered area has fallen below its 2005 level, which was the second lowest on record.
The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) says that the ice-covered area has fallen below its 2005 level, which was the second lowest on record.
Sounds really scary doesn't it - the second lowest level of Arctic ice ever. Humans and their carbon burning ways are destroying the planet causing year after year of record low Arctic ice levels. Humanity - or at least the industrialized population - must be stopped.
What the entire article glosses over and never explains is this phrase from the first sentence "since satellite records began." Which according to NASA - the satellite people:
Satellites have made continual observations of Arctic sea ice extent since 1978
Just looking at our calendar, that means we have no comparable reference data for the previous 1,977 years. Meaning we have data for about 2% of our calendar.
According to a study by Frank Brown, professor of geology and geophysics, dean of the College of Mines and Earth Sciences, University of Utah, Ian McDougall of Australian National University in Canberra, and anthropologist John Fleagle of New York state's Stony Brook University humans first began destroying apeared on the the planet about 195,000 years ago. Which means the satellite record that the BBC thinsks we should be so concerned about represents .02% of the known existence of homo sapiens.
In this report we learn that the oldest fossil of the venerable horseshoe crab dates back almost half a billion years.
Rudkin and his colleagues, including Graham Young of the Manitoba Museum, spotted the fossils buried in 445-million-year-old rocks from the Ordovician period in central and northern Manitoba. They describe the discovery in the January issue of the journal Paleontology.
On the horseshoe crab scale - the Arctic ice "tipping point" is based on record comprising approximately .000009% of planetary history.
But if you want to consider the satellite record of Arctic ice in terms of the existence of the planet - here's the raw data:
The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.
The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.
40 years out of 4.5 billion. You do the math.
Quite frankly, I don't see how anyone can honestly make the claim that they know what "normal" should be for Arctic ice or any aspect of the climate. I don't see how anyone can honestly look at the satellite ice record and proclaim that the second lowest ice level in 40 years is portent of impending doom.
Then again I don't understand why I still look for any level of honesty in "global warming" news.
UPDATE: Wired magazine goes for the record in headline hubris:
Arctic Ice on Track for Another All-Time Low
Idiots.
Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 08:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
25kb generated in 0.0412 seconds; 38 queries returned 176 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.
