The Right Opinion

The Truth Behind the Shrinking Arctic Ice Cap

Facts paint a different picture

By Joe Bastardi · Sep. 13, 2012

There is no sugar coating the fact that the Arctic sea ice is well below normal:

The AGW agenda is jumping all over this metric as evidence that catastrophic global warming is upon us. After all, they really can no longer use earth's actual air and ocean temperatures as proof since they have leveled off, and are now cooling. The disconnect with C02, still on the rise, cannot be denied:

As you can see, I admit Arctic sea ice is on the decline, but the question is, why?

The answer can be seen through natural causes. A look at the ocean temperatures globally over the past 15 years, or since the global temperatures reached a peak in the major el Nino of 1997-1998 supplies the answer. Notice on Sept 1, 1997, most of the northern hemisphere ocean was quite warm, the southern hemisphere cooler:

This is an example of the warm phases of the Pacific Decadol Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadol Oscillation both occurring at once. A tremendous input of heat (oceans have 1000 times the heat capacity of air) into the atmosphere has to be occurring, causing a rise in the global temperature which was well documented through the 1990s.

But one also notices a counter cooling in much of the southern hemisphere oceans.

Since dry air over land warms more than air over the ocean, the response of the warming ocean when that air came over the drier land was more of a rise in temperatures over the continents than fall over the southern hemisphere oceans . So it appears that the earth is warming. After all if you have many more samples of warm than cold, your answer has to come up warmer, right? However, is there a change in the total energy budget of the earth? If there is not then what goes up, must come down. The earths temperature rose in response to the warming Pacific, which started the northern ice cap melting. The Atlantic is in its warm stage now, so the ice cap is being attacked from the ocean also. Once the Atlantic comes out of its warm phase in 10 to 15 years, the ice cap will rebound.

Below are charts in 5 year increments that show a reversal has occurred in the Pacific:

2002

2007

2012 at the height of the la nina

The current water temperature anomaly shows very warm water in the north Atlantic, a product of the warm cycle of the Atlantic we are in like the 1950s, and this continues to attack the ice cap.

But is the lack of ice at times that unusual? Apparently not as photographic evidence shows. Here is a picture of a submarine surfacing at the North Pole in August of 1959 – another period of known warmth similar to the cycle we are in now.

More startling to me was this picture that shows large amounts of open water at the North Pole in May of 1987 with three subs surfacing.

Wind and storminess can also have an effect on the Arctic ice, which is what recently happened. A fierce storm broke up a lot of the ice and shoved much of it southeast into the center of the ice cap. But when viewing this 30 day loop of the arctic, notice how fast the rebound from the low point has been in the past 30 days, with a shrinkage because of the storm, then the ice rapidly rebounding (make sure to put this into a loop).

The recent pronouncement that Greenland had the most rapid melt period on record is another example of neglecting the actual facts to come up with an objective idea. If you would like to read more on that matter, here is a nice link.

The reason we are seeing all this is because we have seen a distortion of the global temperature pattern the past 30 years brought about by the warm phase of the Pacific, which started the warming of the northern hemisphere, followed by the Atlantic warming. The response was greater over land where air is dry and can be easily warmed! How can we test this theory, besides waiting for it to simply recover once the Atlantic turns colder? Well we have a hint, and it's in the southern hemisphere. After all, we have to think globally, right? That is what we hear: GLOBAL warming. So we should also have the southern hemisphere shrinking if they are correct and my hypothesis is wrong.

Let's evaluate, shall we?

Over the past 30 years there has been a rise in the southern ice cap! One would never know it given all the hysteria about the northern ice cap, or some spots on Antarctica being warmer than normal (it can't be cold everywhere):

I spoke on this matter at the Heartland conference ICCC7. Because the southern hemisphere ice cap is surrounded by ocean, the implication of an expanding southern hemisphere ice cap, even though it appears smaller than the northern shrinkage, is that there is no net change in the overall heat capacity of the entire ocean/air system. This would imply the northern shrinkage is simply a cyclical event. In fact, the increase in the south is actually quite remarkable since it takes more energy loss to cool the water enough around the southern hemisphere ice cap than it does energy gain to warm the dry, colder air over land surrounding the northern hemisphere ice cap The warming of that air, combined with the warm cycle still present in the Atlantic means there should be a shrinking northern ice cap. This is yet another challenge I have laid at the feet of the AGW community: The idea that the global temperature as measured objectively by satellites will return to where it was in the late 1970s by 2030 and the northern ice cap will also. Truth be told, we will be in real trouble if there is no warming response to the oceans in the southern hemisphere and shrinking back of that ice cap! That is more of a concern to many of us than the idea the planet is about to burn up. It's ice, not fire that should be the concern, especially when one looks at some of the ideas on the solar cycles and temperatures, as well as the economic and social repercussions of a colder planet. For your benefit, here's a recent paper on the matter of sunspots and global temperatures.

As a nation, we must use what has made us successful to progress. The limiting of energy sources based on faulty ideas and partial truths has lead to a weakening of our country and increased misery among our people. For example: Gas is nearly 4 dollars a gallon now, and the shame is that there is no reason based on what we should be doing, for that to be happening. This is taking hundreds of billions of dollars out of our economy and redistributing it elsewhere. Regulations based on worry about things that are cyclical in nature and explainable based on the total picture and body of evidence, are also taking hundreds of billions of dollars out of the economy.

The sad truth is this: A nation built on the freedoms to confront reality, will not survive if shackled by policies that chase utopian ghosts.

The tale of the ice cap is a prime example of this.

Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.

© Copyright 2012 The Patriot Post

Appeal_patriots_day_1

View all comments

58 Comments

wjm in Colorado said:

If the facts don't support their progressive agenda, then you are a racist! Liberals are completely delusional.

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 9:12 AM

JC Smith in Georgia replied:

"If the facts don't support their progressive agenda, then you are a racist!"

I agree. We all should support the regressive policies of the conservatives:)

Wednesday, March 13, 2013 at 10:30 PM

Robert Murphy in North Carolina said:

"There is no sugar coating the fact that the Arctic sea ice is well below normal."

Why do you keep posting a map of sea surface temperatures on Twitter claiming it shows a rapid recovery of Arctic sea ice this month? This is the correct map from that website: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icedrift_anim/index.uk.php
There has been no recovery of sea ice this month Joe.

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Lawrence Jenkins in London UK replied:

So what you are saying Robert is that Joe is not telling the truth and no matter how much he dices it up he cannot get away from the fact the ice is melting due to AGW? So that means half the ice has melted due to a .4C rise in temps since 1980?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly_1880-2010_(Fig.A).gif

Blimey that ice is really sensitive

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 12:06 PM

India in GA replied:

LOL...

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Robert Murphy in North Carolina replied:

"So what you are saying Robert is that Joe is not telling the truth..."

When he posts a picture of sea surface temps and claims it shows sea ice concentration, there is no disputing he's wrong. When he is told this and he continues to post the wrong picture, he's certainly guilty of telling a fib.

"So that means half the ice has melted due to a .4C rise in temps since 1980?"

That's the global temp rise. And the graph you linked to shows .6C of warming since 1980, not .4*C. The rise in the Arctic has been a bit more than that though. Try about 2*C.

"Blimey that ice is really sensitive."

Yes, it is.

Friday, September 14, 2012 at 6:26 AM

wxdavid in richmond va replied:

Because with JB making up crap is more important than fact

Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 8:07 AM

Robert Murphy in North Carolina said:

As for the pretty pictures of subs surfacing at the pole, I'm sure there is a reason you forgot to tell people that they had to use sonar to find the small holes in the thick ice before they could peek up and surface, right? The holes are called "polynyas". Here's a nice summary of them:

http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/polynyas.html

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 10:02 AM

Chewly in Gakona Alaska replied:

Wow, do you understand the argument? +feedback with a factor of nearly X3 for CO2 in the ocean-air/troposphere. Have you followed the geo-physical argument or only the political science one? Do you understand the lack of understanding within the climatology field? The CO2 at 1000hPa is insufficient, whereas it and the other tropospheric constituents at 800, 600, 500, 200 right on up to 10hPA are unknown. Do you think the climatologists have incorporated the needed inputs to their models with proper weighting? Do you know why Trenberth abandoned his atmospheric chemistry studies a few years ago? Do you realize the infancy of their argument (X3), which is based on "We can't think of any other contributing factors" to the added warmth. When tropospheric elements mix and rise, right up to the meso-pause (the mesosphere is roughly 10,000 times drier than the Sahara) and turn into their atomic constituents above, do you think the climatologists (the field where smoking high IQ's don't travel) understand the full spectrum of wavelengths and there interactions on the particle matter? These guys do not have the discipline, aptitude or integrity to probe our environment, much less adequately program a ocean-air circulation model. Get a life and open your eyes. Their ability to stick with the really intensive studies have been shown, and they are lacking!

Saturday, September 15, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Robert Murphy in North Carolina replied:

Chewly,

Your response has nothing to do with mine, which was about submarines using polynyas to surface in the Arctic. Maybe you meant to post to someone else, on a different thread?

Saturday, September 15, 2012 at 8:37 PM

Andy in London replied:

"whereas it and the other tropospheric constituents at 800, 600, 500, 200 right on up to 10hPA are unknown"

Seriously, here is someone accusing scientists of not knowing the composition of our atmosphere at heights above 2 km. ROFL

Friday, October 5, 2012 at 4:59 PM

Paul Couch in N.C. said:

Joe the graph showing co2 on the rise does not square with an article that I read a few weeks ago. The article said that co2 levels were down to 1992 levels. I know you are asking what article? I wish I had paid more attention, but I don't remember.

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Myron Mesecke in Temple, TX replied:

CO2 in the US are down to 1992 levels Per Capita. That means per person. But there are more people so the level is still rising. What it means is that fuel mileage is up, engines and motors are more efficient, the use of GPS and GIS has made shipping more efficient and reduced the amount of fuel burned, etc. The US is doing more with less.

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Don in New York said:

Several points:

1. The thick ice pack can periodically rupture with holes or fissures. That a sub surfaced through a hole in the ice does not necessarily mean that Arctic sea ice extent, area, or volume rivaled today's figures.

2. Natural variability (mainly the AMO) plays a significant role in influencing Arctic sea ice trends. The role of natural variability is declining.

3. Recent scientific papers e.g., Stroeve et al., (2012) suggest that the anthropogenic contribution may explain about 60% of the Arctic sea ice extent trend since 1979.

4. The decline in summer sea ice cover has also coincided with a rapid disappearance of very thick multi-year ice. Thinner ice coming into the summer sets the stage for further reductions in summer ice coverage (with some temporary fluctuations).

5. The decline in summer ice coverage has not been linear. There have now been two abrupt declines (2007 and 2012). Research from Antarctica might have some relevance, as such developments were found to occur with respect to marine ice cover as opposed to land ice cover. If so, additional abrupt declines in summer ice might lie ahead down the road.

Given this information, I suspect two plausible scenarios stand out:

1. The shift in the AMO could lead to a partial but temporary recovery in summer sea ice. The recovery would be partial, as the AMO still has influence. The recovery would be temporary, as GHG forcing continues to increase relative to natural forcings and oceanic cycles.

2. The shift in the AMO would slow the rate of decline for a time; abrupt declines would continue to occur. GHG forcing coupled with amplifying feedbacks would preclude a sustained and meaningful recovery.

The latter scenario is probably more likely. First, based on Arctic temperature data, the last peak-to-trough decline in annual Arctic readings was 1.91°C from a 1943 peak anomaly of +1.22°C. The annual anomaly was +2.15°C in 2011 and 2012 will likely be warmer. Even if the Arctic cools at the rate it did last time, Arctic readings would stay above normal. With GHG forcing having grown, less cooling is likely. Second, summer ice extent is lower than it was during the last "warm cycle." Feedbacks tied to that situation could impede any ability to recover. Overall, greater warmth coupled with reduced capacity for recovery suggest a continuation of the decline in summer ice coverage, though possibly at a slower rate for a time. The risk of abrupt drops would persist.

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Brian in Newport News replied:

Don,

I appreciate the facts and figures. The problem I see is this: scientific papers "suggest" that there "may" be a man-made aspect to global warming. Those with an agenda latch on to these studies as "proof" of their claims and kindle wild fires of fear to get the gullible to go along with their agenda.

How do these studies explain (or do they even attempt it?) the apparent warm period back in the 1200's or so when the Vikings were settling Iceland and Greenland? We weren't burning fossil fuels then. Perhaps there is yet another reason for the cycles we observe here on earth? I don't know, maybe something to do with variations in the output of the sun?

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Robinius in Broomfield, Colorado replied:

Don, you suspect? You don't know? What kind of pseudo-scientist are you. The earth has gone through changes in temperatures for billions of years and you take a 40 year sample and make an analysis predicting future events? It has been in the 90's here in Colorado for 3 straight months. I predict that by January 1st, 2013 it will reach 100 degrees. No?

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Bill in New York replied:

Don,
Well done with the data you supplied. I personally believe that the idea of "catastrophic AGW" is nothing but alarmism by people with agendas. That said, I do believe that by mere existence on this planet, humans have an affect on the environment. What the quantity of that impact is... will remain unknown and debated for some time.

I just wanted to say thank you for bringing facts to the discussion, in a constructive format. I think if more 'calm' debate was had, it would be a productive conversation.

Friday, September 14, 2012 at 4:17 PM

HarryW in Colorado replied:

Yeeees, facts. One fact is, very rarely pointed out, you will NOT see true skeptics/climate scientists *ever* use the term, "CAGW." That is a fabrication of the denialati, end of story. However, some of the current, empirically-measured effects that were *predicted' as possibilities as long ago as 1980, now taking place, will be quite catastrophic to humanity.

Sunday, September 16, 2012 at 2:27 PM

wxdavid in richmond va replied:

dude you are a serious idiot

Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Jessica in Manhattan/Portland replied:

+1

Saturday, January 11, 2014 at 4:55 AM

Robinius in Broomfield, Colorado said:

Brian, there are billions of dollars riding the wave of anthropogenic global warming. Careers, too. Just ask the AGW official spokesperson/circus clown Al Gore how bad it is. Don't forget to ask why he needs to heat and cool 3 large homes. Ask also why he is the size of two people when people in Africa and elsewhere are starving. Al Gore and his ilk are profiting handsomely from this nonsense.

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 1:49 PM

BJ in St. Cloud, MN said:

First I'd like to tell all the Prius owners that the big green earth could care less and doesn't even notice your attempt at feeling better about yourself.
I spend a lot of time in the Arctic as close as Griese Fiord which is the last village before the Pole. Most of the older Inuits tell me that there's more ice now than there ever was and since they hunt out on that ice I would take their word for gospel before some agendized lying liberal. The Polar Bear is about to be taken off the endangered species list, they're culling Elephants in most countries because of over population)see Botswana with it's 130,000) we're having a Grey Wolf trapping and hunting season this year in MN, and Algore is a lying greedy creep. DDT is not legal to use for malaria mosquitoes so millions die and most of the EPA should be indicted and jailed for their lies. My point? 4.00 gas, 10.00 Redwood, small "killer" cars, and our money going to people who will use it to kill us, mostly because of liberals, with the help of the GOP. Still don't see my point? Just wanted to complain about idiots, liers, and although redundant-politicians.

TERM LIMITS-PROSECUTE

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Howard Last in Wyoming replied:

They are running a commercial here in Wyoming about polar bears drowning because the ice is melting. Polar bears are routinely found swimming one hundred and more miles off shore in open ocean chasing seals. In fact polar bears are classified as a Marine Mammal. I am waiting for AlBore and company to take a polar bear home with them.

There will be a hunting season for Grey Wolves in Wyoming. Also you will be able kill wolves on sight if they are attacking stock. How come pictures of wolf pups are shown on TV, but never of the carcuses of fawns, calves, lambs, piglets, etc. killed by wolves?

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 7:50 PM

Don in New York said:

Brian,

The pre-industrial climatic evolution was driven by natural forcings and natural oceanic cycles, although there is some uncertainty regarding the precise details. Moreover pronounced warmings in the paleoclimate record coincided with higher atmospheric CO2. Some literature suggests that initial warming started a release of CO2 into the atmosphere and, in turn, rising atmospheric CO2 contributed to even greater warming. That CO2 was transferred from storage to the atmosphere by natural processes in the past does not mean that human activities cannot contribute to rising atmospheric concentrations. Human activities have made the marginal contribution in pushing annual emissions above annual absorption. Rising atmospheric CO2 has led to an energy imbalance and rising temperatures.

Policy formation is a completely different matter from the science. A complex balancing of interests and evaluation of costs/tradeoffs and benefits would be involved in determining how to proceed. Each nation's approach would need to be consistent with its own national interest. A "one size fits all" approach would not be viable. Neither would policy that is left to the UN to craft and implement. The UN's track record on its core mission concerning international peace and security is not great. The magnitude of power that would be required for UN enforcement to be feasible would pose a serious threat to sovereign freedom.

To be sustainable (at least in democratic countries), a policy response would need to command sufficient public support. To be effective, a policy solution should respect what markets do well, so as to avoid unintended harmful economic impacts e.g., a larger loss of growth than would otherwise be the case. To be practical, a step-by-step policy approach might be preferable to trying to accomplish everything with a single new policy. Finally, countries could collaborate, but they would do so in a voluntary fashion consistent with their interests and sovereign authority.

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Dennis in Maryland said:

But Joe,

If all of this information is really so obvious to you and goes along with your expertise on this subject, why then did you not account for all of this truth back in March when you made this forecast of the arctic sea ice extent for this summer?

[http://www.real-science.com/joe-bastardi-responds-to-the-ams-climate-statement]

"...but obviously we are not going to be ice free this summer and will not even drop as low as last year, which DID NOT ACCORDING TO REALITY drop to levels seen in 2007."

So just 6 months ago, even with all of this truthful ocean temperature and cycle information, you predicted that this years sea ice extent was not going to drop below last years levels and therefore not even come close to the 2007 minimums? Oops!

Was there something you may have forgot? Something like most of the increase in sea ice you saw back in March consisted of thin, 1-year ice [http://vortex.accuweather.com/adc2004/pub/includes/columns/climatechange/2012/590x382_09051851_figure55.png] that would quickly melt away during the summer melt season?

Thursday, September 13, 2012 at 5:15 PM

wxdavid in richmond va replied:

when you are dealing with a extreme ideological kook like JB.. why call up his recent statements? why use Facts ?

Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 8:11 AM

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

"No ice in my seltzer, please."I remember ice picks, with wooden handles. Before refrigeration, Americans had ice boxes.Water can exist as a gas, liquid, or a solid; the solid form is called---ICE. The arctic only gets a maximum of 20'' of snowfall per year. I'm not going to build an ark, because God promised not to flood the world, again, like in the time of Noah. In '79, the group- Foreigner, came out with "You are as cold as ice!" Radio stations played that song about 12X per day!

Friday, September 14, 2012 at 5:04 AM

Chris Alemany in Port Alberni said:

Joe, You're either a village idiot or a liar. You know full well that the US Navy has full records of ice thickness and ice conditions in the Arctic in the 50s and that it was NOTHING like today. THe picture you use from 1958 does not have 'open' water. And you know it. A big melt pound (likely created by heat from the submarine itself) is NOT open ocean.

And why are you using an image hosted by wattsupwiththat and not the Navy?

http://www.csp.navy.mil/asl/ScrapBook/Boats/Skate1958.jpg

Why do you think it is OK to lie to your readers. It's disgusting. You are a disgrace to the weather science field.

Friday, September 14, 2012 at 9:13 AM

Chewly in Gakona Alaska replied:

Wow, do you understand the argument? +feedback with a factor of nearly X3 for CO2 in the ocean-air/troposphere. Have you followed the geo-physical argument or only the political science one? Do you understand the lack of understanding within the climatology field? The CO2 at 1000hPa is insufficient, whereas it and the other tropospheric constituents at 800, 600, 500, 200 right on up to 10hPA are unknown. Do you think the climatologists have incorporated the needed inputs to their models with proper weighting? Do you know why Trenberth abandoned his atmospheric chemistry studies a few years ago? Do you realize the infancy of their argument (X3), which is based on "We can't think of any other contributing factors" to the added warmth. When tropospheric elements mix and rise, right up to the meso-pause (the mesosphere is roughly 10,000 times drier than the Sahara) and turn into their atomic constituents above, do you think the climatologists (the field where smoking high IQ's don't travel) understand the full spectrum of wavelengths and there interactions on the particle matter? These guys do not have the discipline, aptitude or integrity to probe our environment, much less adequately program a ocean-air circulation model. Get a life and open your eyes. Their ability to stick with the really intensive studies have been shown, and they are lacking!

Saturday, September 15, 2012 at 8:27 PM

Robert Murphy in North Carolina replied:

Chewly, I see you are just spamming people with the same exact response you gave me above, and that it is equally unresponsive to the person you posted to as it was with my post. No further reply is need to you nor will one be given.

Saturday, September 15, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Christopher Alemany in Port Alberni said:

If people want to actually see the current state of the ice here is ice thickness data that you can load into Google Earth as.

The ice has thinned so much that the only ice more than a meter or two thick is stuck up against Greenland. Everything else is like a thin skin.

https://sites.google.com/site/apocalypse4realseaice2012/home/sea-ice-concentration-and-thickness-comparison

Friday, September 14, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Salvatore Del Prete in Bay CIty, Michigan said:

If one looks at the data one can see a clear cut correlation between the phase of the AMO , and the amount of Arctic Sea Ice. If one goes back in time to 1900, one will find the same correlations.

Even the AO/NAO don't influence the Arctic Sea Ice as much as the AMO.

Further ,if this were a so called result of the BS global man made warming, Antarctica Sea Ice would show the same trends as the Arctic Sea Ice.

However much to the dismay of the BS global warmers ,Antarctica Sea Ice , is on the increase.

Friday, September 14, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Chris Alemany in Port Alberni replied:

"If one goes back in time to 1900, one will find the same correlations."

Absolutely, positively, incorrect. The data, as well as oral histories from the Inuit and other Arctic peoples from 1900 shows far more ice was up there.

Antarctic sea ice is a complete red herring as it is a completely different polar environment!

Friday, September 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Chewly in Gakona Alaska replied:

Wow, do you understand the argument?
+feedback with a factor of nearly X3 for CO2 in the ocean-air/troposphere.
Have you followed the geo-physical argument or only the political science one?

Saturday, September 15, 2012 at 8:11 PM

wxdavid in richmond va replied:

100% CORRECT

Thursday, September 20, 2012 at 8:12 AM

Keith Pickering in Watertown, MN said:

Joe, you forgot about the seasons!

September 1,2 & 3 is the end of summer in the northern hemisphere, and the end of winter in the southern hemisphere. So it's no surprise that the sea surface temp is warmer in the north and cooler in the south at that time of the year (1997, 2002, and 2007). Meanwhile January 2 is the middle of winter in the northern hemisphere and the middle of summer in the southern hemisphere, so again it's no surprise that the southern hemisphere is warmer and the northern hemisphere is cooler on Jan 2, 2012.

Friday, September 14, 2012 at 12:57 PM

HarryW in Colorado replied:

Don't confuse poor ol' Joe The Denier with *facts*, now. That's not fair!

>;-)

Sunday, September 16, 2012 at 2:32 PM

richard in new york said:

not to worry, 2012- the northwest passage is iced in.

1940-1942 the vessel St Rock navigated the Northwest passage, another vessel did it 38 years earlier.

Friday, September 14, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Seumas in UK replied:

Well done Richard! By mentioning only two incidences of vessels navigating the North West passage, and avoiding mentioning the nine small vessels and two cruise ships that completed the transit of the Northwest Passage in 2009, you have managed to successfully deceive the people reading your message into thinking you had made a point about the ice levels this year.

The deception was probably even greater if you directed people who knew and trusted you to read your post! I think you have the makings of a very successful Satanist. The Father of Lies is always looking for more adherents...

Friday, September 14, 2012 at 4:04 PM

Chewly in Gakona Alaska replied:

Wow, do you understand the argument? +feedback with a factor of nearly X3 for CO2 in the ocean-air/troposphere. Have you followed the geo-physical argument or only the political science one?
I guess erasing history is the norm these days...

Saturday, September 15, 2012 at 8:13 PM