Arctic sea ice loss due to global warming

you proved NOTHING!...you quoted an anonymous internet poster as if he/she was an authority, the poster just borrowed from a wiki site and not only that he/she and you both failed to comprehend the link...

in what world are anonymous posters authorities on anything? in what world is wiki a reputable source of info? ...oh ya your source askville.amazon.com might as well use askyahoo.com ....I can just imagine you writing a uni paper and citing askville.amazon.com, askyahoo and wiki as your sources...but then you've never set foot in a uni have you...

the only thing you've verified is how little you know...

I on the other hand linked to the most recognized international authority in regards to Polar Bears...

 

You mean like polar bears that was peer reviewed by the scientists wife. This is why Global warming has lost all probability. You must attack sources because you can not dispute the facts..


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45447

Investigators are also examining Monnet’s procurement of one of those research studies on polar bears conducted by Canada's University of Alberta, as well as the “disclosure of personal relationships and preparation of the scope of work,” according to a July 29 memo from the Interior Department's inspector general’s office.

In particular, investigators are asking questions about the peer review work on Monnett’s drowned polar bear paper, which was done by his wife, Lisa Rotterman, as well as Andrew Derocher, the lead researcher on the Canadian study under review by the inspector general's office.

Monnett is being legally defended by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which posted the interviews the inspector general's office conducted with both scientists on its website.

 

I am waiting for you to wake up from your propaganda induced stupor and actually think.....but I am not holding my breath.



Dramatic Decline in Sea Ice Imperils Western Hudson Bay Polar Bears
Polar Bear Survival, Reproduction Threatened by Extended Period on Land
12-07-2010

 

I notice you ignore my last post that shows how the polar bear paper was totally wrong the scientist wasn't even there to study polar bears and the peer review was friends and family.

You article is more opinions than fact. Likely is not fact

The polar bear paper investigation shows environmentalists and global warming people deceive and are not credible.

 

Those are your denier cult delusions, all right, but, as usual, they have no real connection to reality. Dr Monnet’s paper was accurate, polar bears are severely threatened by the loss of Arctic sea ice and their numbers are in decline in most areas. It is the stooges for the fossil fuel industry who are deceiving you and who are not credible but you are far too brainwashed to comprehend that.

 

That was the hearing and what they found. You will not address the facts. How is it his wife is one of the peer review people and another peer review person was rewarded by Monnet.

You have no answers for the truth the investigation is bringing out.

He was not even looking for bears he was looking for whales. This shows why the Global Warming scientists are not believable and have no credibility.

 

More regurgitated denialist cult spew. Does it save you having to think about what you post?

 

Alot of ice is reflecting less light and in turn absorbing more heat.

 

What evidence did Dr. Monett have that they were polar bears? You cant tell what they are from the photos. And as the investigators were able to show they had tried to enhance the photo most likely with Photoshop because the signature from the camera was removed.

And beyond that what evidence does Monett have that they drowned. From experience I can tell you that when you come a cross a cluster of dead animals especially predators like that in the wild they usually have bullet holes in them or were poisned. Bear organs sell for thousands on the black market. What evidence does Monett have that some poacher didn't just kill them for the valuable parts liver, blader, kidneys etc and left the carcass.

Monett knew full well that his paper was bull(*)(*)(*)(*). That is why he paid off one of the reviewers and was boinking the other one.

 

No it is in the investigation. You refuse to admit the facts and continue to spread lies.

 

As usual, you are very confused. There has been no "hearing" and no judgements either, except the foolish ones you jump to without any evidence. Some quite possibly politically/economically motivated investigators asked some questions.....that's all that's happened so far. Your apparent assumption that anyone who is being investigated must be guilty is too crazy to bother with.

You have almost nothing in the way of actual "facts" as yet. Just politically motivated pre-judgements about matters of science that you can't understand.

Criticisms of scientific method coming from a bunch of anti-science 'flat-earthers' like you denier cultists is humorously ironic but totally meaningless.

BTW, science often advances when scientists notice something they weren't actually looking for. Believing that Dr. Monnet should have ignored the drowned bears because he was investigating something else is just plain retarded.

 

Another recent study of current conditions in the Arctic shows one of the reasons why the Arctic sea ice is thinning so rapidly. It is the shift from snowfall to rainfall, induced by rising temperatures, that is exposing the bare ice to the sun's rays.

More Rain, Less Snow Leads to Faster Arctic Ice Melt
ScienceDaily
July 1, 2011
(excerpts)

Rising air temperatures in the Arctic region have led to an increase in rainfall and a decrease in snowfall, making the sea ice more susceptible to melting, a new study has revealed. The Arctic region is warming more rapidly than anywhere else on Earth. Dr Screen of the University's School of Earth Sciences, who led the research, said due to warming temperatures, on more days of the year and in more parts of the polar region, temperatures are becoming too warm for protective snow to form.

"As a result of this temperature shift, we estimate that there has been a 40 percent decrease in summer snowfall over the last 20 years. Snow is highly reflective and bounces up to 85 percent of the incoming sunlight back into space. Snow on top of ice effectively acts as a sunscreen protecting the ice from the power of the sun rays. As the snow cover has decreased, more sea ice has become exposed to the sunlight, increasing the melting of the ice. Measurements show that the sea ice has been getting thinner and less extensive," he said

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

 

Due to particulate matter in the atmosphere. It settles on snow and ice and makes it darker. When ice melts... the water also absorbs more heat...because it is darker than snow or ice.

That in turn melts more ice.

I am quoting this for other people...Felix is spot on.

 

Yes its called cryoconite, its about 5% soot but its enough to darken the ice and reduce its albedo, or the ability for the ice to reflect light, rather than absord heat. So the more cryoconite the easier it will be for ice to melt. Does not have a connection to temperature.

 

You don't read the links I provide

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45447

 

The twisted interpretation that your rightwingnut propaganda outlet puts on events is as meaningless as your own clueless fantasies.

Fairly soon the truth of this matter will come out and it will almost certainly be that this is just another case of the harassment of scientists whose research results are inconvenient for the oil corps.

 

No it is the investigation which you deny. Look who did his peer review. This man like many in the GW community is a fraud

 

No, that's your delusion. Dr Monnet is a good and competent scientist. Your astro-turfed, oil corp sponsored denier cult is the fraud. You've been manipulated and duped by those with a financial stake in selling fossil fuels and this smearing of scientists is part of their propaganda campaign.

 

The truth is that all that we hear are nothing more then presumptions. But it should be obvious that we shouldn´t use our atmosphere as a trashbin like we do now.

 

You show you have nothing. The federal investigation shows him for the fraud he is.

You rant with talking points buy have nothing to refute the facts of the investigation. He corrupted the peer review process and he wrote a paper with no proof and he was not even there to study what he wrote on.

It is people and studies like this that are full of lies and deceptions that prove what a lie and scam and deception Global warming is. More junk science and corruption from the global warming community

 

No.

the truth is that there is strong evidence to support the theory of AGW.

try this link:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html

scientists are a much better source of information on scientific matters than publicists for non profits funded by industry.

yes.

you are right - we should look after the world we live in, we don't have another planet.

 

the junk and corruption is on the denialist side of the fence.

they are getting desperate though - thats why they have recruited more people to push their agenda.

 

You mean the ones that lie and deceive. Like the hottest October or the Himalaya scam

 

So you will ignore the federal investigation and the lies? I guess you believe Gore's movie to.

 

you aren't making any sense.

if you were following this issue you would be aware of what is happening.

Scientists in a range of disciplines have found clear evidence that we are experiencing climate chnage that is having significant impacts on a range of species and ecosystems.

There is clear evidence from marine biologists, herpetologists, ornithologists, botanists and others detailing the impact of climate change on a number of species, as well as significant evidence from glaciologists etc.

if you want to contribute to the discussion, how about you go away and do some research.