Source: Author: Date: Click:
So you believe in global warming? figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the “lost” ice has come back. Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels. http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/3526...
so you still believe in global warming? Jan 2000: 14.4 mil. sq km
Jan 2001: 14.3 mil. sq km
Jan 2002: 14.4 mil. sq km
Jan 2003: 14.5 mil. sq km
Jan 2004: 14 mil. sq km
Jan 2005: 13.7 mil. sq km
Jan 2006: 13.6 mil. sq km
Jan 2007: 13.8 mil. sq km
Oct 2007: 6.8 mil. sq km
Jan 2008: 14 mil. sq km

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_i... Report Abuse

Other Answers (21)

  • Wow, it%26#039;s Winter, call the tabloids!

    How thick was the ice lost, vs. what regrew?

    The current cooling La Nina weather influence may postpone record melt for a year or two, but if the high melt rate returns and the albedo change drives rapid warming, we could hit a %26quot;tipping point%26quot; and dumbed down tabloid articles may be the least of our worries.

    Here%26#039;s a quantification of the scientific agreement on the issue:

    http://norvig.com/oreskes.html
    The consensus was quantified in a Science study by Prof. Naomi Oreskes (Dec. 2004) in which she surveyed 928 scientific journal articles that matched the search [global climate change] at the ISI Web of Science. Of these, according to Oreskes, 75% agreed with the consensus view (either implicitly or explicitly), 25% took no stand one way or the other, and none rejected the consensus.

    There have not been virtually no skeptical papers published in any peer-reviewed journal.

    However, you will see frequent quotes and articles from these folks:

    %26quot;The risks of passive smoking were disputed by some global warming skeptics and related institutions, including Richard Lindzen, Steven Milloy, Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, Michael Crichton...%26quot;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...

    Fox News is happy to run their material for them, since controversy drives ratings and revenue for them:

    At Fox News, a Pundit for Hire
    http://www.freepress.net/news/print.php?...

    %26quot;Objective viewers long ago realized that Fox News has a political agenda. But, when a pundit promotes this agenda while on the take from corporations that benefit from it, then Fox News has gone one disturbing step further%26quot;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Mill...

    So what%26#039;s not to believe? Who has the credibility, the scientists, or the professional PR firms and the tabloids that run their junk?

    Are you suggesting that the return of the sea ice during winter proves humans aren%26#039;t causing the warming? I don%26#039;t see how you could possibly make that argument.

    This is the problem with many denier arguments. They say something nebulous like %26#039;look polar bear populations aren%26#039;t declining%26#039;, %26#039;look, China is having a cold winter%26#039;, but they don%26#039;t say how this is supposed to undermine the man-made global warming theory. Because it doesn%26#039;t.
    Just change the dates via the drop-down menus.

    EDIT - anyone who refers to someone that links to scientific data as a mindless boob is he himself less than a mindless boob.
  • No. I know it%26#039;s true.

    The ice AREA has come back, because in winter it%26#039;s easy to make a surface layer, especially given how far back it melted this summer. The VOLUME is nowhere near what it was.

    There%26#039;s a reason why this is not changing scientists minds about global warming and this is not front page news, and it%26#039;s not because of some imaginary %26quot;conspiracy%26quot;.

    Calling these folks %26quot;mindless boobs%26quot; is really credible (NOT).

    The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, the American Chemical Society, the American Meteorological Association, etc.

    I suppose you can choose to believe someone random here, instead. World leaders won%26#039;t.

    Stinky - Savvy the difference between area and volume?
  • please excuse the following language: You are ignorant and stupid. to believe that bs from the right wing conservative morons is crazy! go watch an inconvenient truth and learn something in your life! to even doubt global warming is unhuman.
  • I know it%26#039;s a hoax. Mindless boobs that listen to the likes of Al Gore will believe anything. It%26#039;s called being unable to think for yourself!
  • No, it doesn%26#039;t. Sure, a lot of ice up north has frozen in the last few months--its WINTERTIME, genius. Look at a calender, why don%26#039;t you.
  • Yes and also that Solar Power Socialism is a way to end the poverty which conntributes to it and Global Warming. usual
  • I heard that the sun%26#039;s warming up but humans still contribute to some percentage to global warming...
  • It%26#039;s regardless what i believe. but it%26#039;s couldn%26#039;t hurt to save energy and get rid of gas guzzlers. Oil is finite, the world is finite, and America is finite.
[TOP] [Close]
Slide Show
ADVERTISEMENT