digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

NASA Climate Scientist Gives Tutorial on Arctic Sea Ice watch!

youtube.com — NASA climate scientist Tom Wagner provides a 5 minute tutorial on the state of Arctic sea ice in 2009 and discusses NASA's role in monitoring the cryosphere.

Who dugg this? Made popular Oct 16, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

46 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • perry8472, on 10/17/2009, -1/+20Worst comments ever.

    The evidence Nasa finds needs to reach more people so we can stop wasting time convincing people that this is real. More work should be done on how we can reverse these effects, while doing what we can to slow down our footprint in the mean time.
  • christoast, on 10/17/2009, -3/+19All the smart people who where here when digg was just getting started are probably going to have to leave soon, I'm seeing some rampant, rampant stupidity. I Wonder how long until we see a story praising Glenn Beck.
  • NiftyG, on 10/17/2009, -4/+15Latest projections say that North Pole summers will be ice-free within a decade.

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5 ...
  • greenfyre, on 10/17/2009, -6/+14How about you talk about the actual science and spare us the drivel?
    Here is a list of the 2726 most frequently cited authors of climate research with links to their work (10s of thousands of papers)
    http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate ...
    Pls tell us which of those studies are wrong, how they are wrong, and how that makes all of the other 10s of thousands wrong too.
  • sushieater19, on 10/16/2009, -13/+19What about all the abundant hurricanes predicted after Katrina?
  • twisterrust, on 10/16/2009, -2/+7And I though youtube comments were crap!!
  • lostlyrics, on 10/17/2009, -3/+8the "will make you believe" "not unprecendented" scam again ?
    sixfingered, autistic (?) spammer reported. - healthcare now ! http://digg.com/political_opinion/There_is_No_Glob ...
  • lostlyrics, on 10/18/2009, -3/+7http://digg.com/environment/Is_The_Earth_Entering_ ...
  • greenfyre, on 10/18/2009, -1/+4Notice the utter lack of any facts or anything relevant in your response? It's kind of hard to miss.
  • Mujokan, on 10/17/2009, -1/+4You'd think trolls would recognize other trolls.
  • angryredplanet, on 10/17/2009, -3/+6That's right David, because climate scientists know nothing at all about climate, rather unlike you speaking from behind your lounge chair degree in oceanic thermal energy imbalance.

    /s
  • greenfyre, on 10/17/2009, -2/+5Nice job pretending it's "knee jerk environmentalists" rather than the truth that it is the scientific facts
    http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate ...
    how about you deal with those?
  • inactive, on 10/17/2009, -5/+6One of the central philosophies of climate change alarmism and an image that adorned the cover of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth - the contention that global warming causes deadly hurricanes – has been completely discredited by the expert who first proposed it.

    http://www.infowars.com/central-plank-of-global-wa ...

  • hereticoftruth, on 10/17/2009, -3/+4Thank you for that list. I am interested in real science, not famous people. However, I will make an effort to check their work and see if I agree with it or not, then let them know whether I think they are right or wrong and why. There are many (most) brilliant scientists who in some aspect of their research who accept falsehoods from other famous scientists based on their reputation rather than checking things out for themselves and when shown contrary and even irrefutable evidence, prefer to go with the pack. By accepting falsehood as truth they blind themselves to reality. It is a shame when that blindness wastes billions of dollars on ineffective solutions to problems. It is in that sense only that I refer to them as knee jerk environmentalists. I use their observations but I interpret them differently because I know falsehoods are incompatible with truth. Very soon scientists will face their Waterloos and lose credibility. But the public will be slow to trust them even after they accept the truth. I am in no way implying I will contact all of them personally. I hope some will respond and not shut their minds like Al Gore.
  • christoast, on 10/17/2009, -6/+7You both are ***** stupid.
  • Benoldays, on 10/19/2009, -0/+1wow greenfyre you are a tool.
    he quite clearly stated that he was going to check the work of the scientists and then respond, in other words he chooses to educate himself. guess what education takes time. and you rip on him with your carbon copy retort?
    How about the "fact" that your link didn't contain any "facts" for him to refute?

    i used to have some modicum of respect for you, but now you have descended down to the level of troll.
  • rusty0101, on 10/17/2009, -3/+3more space for house boats. Yeah!
  • greenfyre, on 10/17/2009, -3/+3How doe Deniers spin the facts? by ignoring them, try some reality and watch the video
  • homercles337, on 10/16/2009, -9/+10LIES! Whats do this guy know? Some elitest edukated libural lieing!
  • halyard, on 10/17/2009, -1/+1We're reporting that they happened. We're also reporting that ther is a huge amount of looting, murders and rape.
  • DavidNiven, on 10/18/2009, -1/+1Al Gore, call your office. Your talking points have changed again.
  • Benoldays, on 10/19/2009, -1/+1it was ice free by 2010 5 years ago.
    interesting how they keep shifting the goal posts isn't it.
  • inactive, on 10/17/2009, -6/+5News from the other pole: 'Antarctica warmed from 1957 to 1979 and then has cooled since':

    http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2009/10/followup-on ...
  • hereticoftruth, on 10/17/2009, -6/+4I wonder how much Carnival cruises will cost when they start circumnavigating the Arctic ocean every year? I'll live long enough to see that before I'll see intelligent climate change being proposed by our knee jerk environmentalists. And I'll have to wait even longer before they will gain credibility with the public. Plant those forests and grasslands and they will take care of the problem!
  • inactive, on 10/17/2009, -7/+5How does Reuters spin GROWING Arctic ice? By reporting on 'predictions' of an ice free Arctic:

    http://climatedepot.com/a/3360/Pure-journalistic-d ...
  • DavidNiven, on 10/16/2009, -9/+7That's news to the earth.

    http://nasascience.nasa.gov/images/about-us/accomp ...

    Hey ObamaYouth, how's that No Child Left Behind working out for ya? LOL!
  • sushieater19, on 10/17/2009, -4/+1I'm really sorry. I guess I'll just go back to watching Fox News and continue helping my grandmother speak out at Town Hall meetings while she's called a neo-nazi, violent mobster!!!
  • DavidNiven, on 10/16/2009, -7/+3Nah. All he needed was a really good set of teleprompters.
  • Asianwaste, on 10/16/2009, -6/+2http://pxwgame.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/bf66 ...
  • inactive, on 10/17/2009, -11/+6@greenfyre:


    1. The earth has clearly been getting warmer for the past ~150 years

    2. This warming is *not* unprecedented as AGW alarmists would have you believe

    3. Some of this warming *may* have been caused by human-emitted C02, but there are enough uncertainties surrounding the science that further research is needed

    4. General Climate Models (GCM’s), the computer models used to predict future climate, are inherently flawed

    5. Considering 2, 3 & 4 above, it is decidedly unwise to spend multi-trillions of dollars economizing a basic building block of life until such time as the uncertainties and flaws are either appropriately accounted for or AGW theory is disproven (at which point spending any money on it would be idiotic).

    I think it’s fair to say that Greenfyre, Viking and other AGW alarmists would agree on #1, but differ substantively on the remainder. As a result, I’ll not bother providing any links for 1, and 5 is a conclusion that you’ll either come to or you won’t based on 2, 3 & 4. Also, it’s worth noting that in no way am I suggesting any of the following links *prove* AGW theory is wrong. What these links *do* prove is that the science is far less settled than AGW alarmists would have you believe and therefore the burden of proof has not been met for taking action of the kind recommended by alarmists. It may be met in the future or it may not. Time will tell.

    Here we go, then.

    1. N/A

    2. Warming Not Unprecedented.

    Overview: this matters because a key tenet of AGW alarmism is that human-generated C02 emissions are warming up the planet faster and warmer than ever before. Scary! If, on the other hand, such warming has occurred in the past and had nothing to do with human-emitted C02, then what we’re experiencing today is not unusual, not that scary and therefore probably doesn’t require massive policy decisions to try to counter it.

    The general case here is that it was just as warm (if not warmer) during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), a climate optimum of very warm temperatures which occurred around AD 800-1,300, which was followed by the Little Ice Age (LIA), a particularly cold period ending around the late 1700’s or so. From that point, temperatures began rising pretty much to where they are today.

    Here’s a decent summary of the MWP from Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

    Now, this topic is likely to set off a link war all by itself. Why? Because AGW alarmists have taken to claiming that the MWP in particular did not exist, or that it was a localized event to Europe and maybe Greenland. So, first you have to decide if it existed (and if so to what extent), then how warm it was (and whether it was similarly warm to today).

    2A. Did the MWP exist, and how far was its extent?

    MWP in New Zealand:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001GL014580 ...

    MWP in China:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/gh98230822m7g0 ...

    MWP in Peru:

    http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/5/771/2009/cpd-5- ...

    MWP in California (1)

    http://www.x-cd.com/mcss04/papers/P47.pdf

    MWP in California (2)

    http://www.jcronline.org/perlserv/?request=get-doc ...

    MWP in Korea

    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleUR ...

    And on and on. Certainly enough widespread results from a disparate number of published scientists that the MWP should not be written off as AGW alarmists would have it.

    2B. How Warm Was the MWP?

    WMP temperatures comparable to today:

    http://www.clim-past.net/2/99/2006/cp-2-99-2006.pd ...

    MWP temperatures comparable to today:

    http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/crowley.amb ...

    MWP temperatures in Scandinavia much warmer than today:

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/8j714536501167 ...

    National Academy of Sciences on contention that MWP not as warm as today:

    http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676& ...

    And on and on. In conjunction with the other links provided certainly enough evidence that it is reasonable to conclude there may well have been a worldwide MWP and that temperatures during it may very well have been comparable to if not higher than today, well before human-caused C02 emissions ever came on the scene. If this is the case then it is also reasonable to conclude that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented and within the range of natural variability.

    3. Uncertainties with regards to AGW being human vs. naturally driven.

    The earth’s climate is fantastically complex. Could natural causes yet unknown or understood be behind some or all of AGW? Alarmists would tell you no, the natural world is well enough understood and the preponderance of science is enough to conclude that most if not all of the warming since 1950 or so has very likely (eg., 90% chance) been forced by human-emitted C02. So are there no questions as to the accuracy of this?

    Solar trends and global warming (a reasonably digestible powerpoint) :

    http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/wkshp.nsf/vwpsw/84E ...

    More solar trends (same author – sorry, couldn’t find the links to the actual paper, but this is a nice summary of it. References at the end):

    http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308. ...

    -Worth noting that the above paper was supposedly “debunked” earlier this year. A debunking of the debunking, if you will, is press for publication shortly. Should be interesting.

    How much will the Sun impact the climate in the coming years? (again, sorry, couldn’t find the link to the actual paper, but this link contains the appropriate references):

    http://climatesci.org/2009/07/22/new-paper-how-wil ...

    C02 Absorption in the Atmosphere much shorter than the IPCC says?. This is important because the IPCC and GCM’s assume human-emitted C02 stays resident in the atmosphere 50+ years. If it’s a lot shorter than that, then future C02 estimates vis-à-vis warming may very well be incorrect and the C02 in the atmosphere must be coming from elsewhere (i.e., naturally, as a result of rising temperatures, not the other way around). Sorry, can’t get past the subscription wall, but here’s the abstract.

    http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef800581r

    Where’s the warming in the Troposphere, then? Interesting debate going on here. Some claim that the lack of heat signature in the satellite data for the middle troposphere, which the GCM’s would predict as a unique signature of greenhouse warming, does not exist, disproving AGW. Others say this assertion has been “debunked.”. Here’s the “doesn’t exist” side:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

    Clouds. Not much known about clouds, really, except that they have significant impact on climate of course. Positive feedback (i.e., they warm us up more) or negative feedback (i.e., they cool us down)? Nobody knows. One study has recently been published suggesting a positive feedback, and here’s a quick response to it from Science:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/325/ ...


    4. The GCM’s have so much uncertainty that they cannot be used to predict future temperatures.

    (From the ScienceDaily summary of the actual paper released earlier this year)

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/09071 ...

    "In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

    Or, for your general (and thorough) debunking of the models (including all the appropriate references at the end):

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/09071 ...

    Money quote: “The rapid growth of uncertainty means that GCMs cannot discern an ice age from a hothouse from 5 years away, much less 100 years away. So far as GCMs are concerned, Earth may be a winter wonderland by 2100 or a tropical paradise. No one knows.”

    -moirende


  • MacBookForMe, on 10/17/2009, -6/+1KIll them with fire!
  • Kangaroux, on 10/16/2009, -7/+1Dugg for QuikSCAT
  • DavidNiven, on 10/18/2009, -10/+4@Greenfrye

    You just got pwned by actual science, dude. Go reply mrjhmm,
  • yocouchdigga, on 10/16/2009, -15/+10ya well everbody noes science has well known librul biased. hes just tryina git messicans to take r jerbs and make baby jesus cry.
  • DavidNiven, on 10/16/2009, -11/+3The Digg Moderators must really love this stuff...or Digg.com is paid to promote certain topics and links.

    Hey! It is a business after all.
  • MacroDaemon, on 10/16/2009, -11/+2He looks like Blagojevich.
  • dhartin, on 10/16/2009, -12/+4yay, global warming creates more real estate, sounds good to me
  • DavidNiven, on 10/16/2009, -19/+9Yeah, there's an error...an error with the science and the political bullcrap that is driving this global warming hysterical nonsense.

    No, Al Gore. The sky is not falling.
  • danxmason, on 10/16/2009, -14/+4When I hit play the video says "An error occurred, please try again later". Now that's funny.
  • Cyberdropping, on 10/16/2009, -16/+6He shoulda thrown in some Powerpoint and he could have won a Nobel Prize.
  • ObamaYouth, on 10/16/2009, -14/+1Truth is, Arctic has been ice free since Aug 2008.
  • dromni, on 10/16/2009, -21/+8How can this crap get to the front page with 85 diggs?

    Ah, I got it now, the Global Warmist Digg Connection.
  • DavidNiven, on 10/16/2009, -19/+5Dang it. You have been told time and time again to stop interrupting the love fest with the earth using facts and logic.

    Don't you know that only the really smart people say that global warming is real and everyone else is a Fox News watcher, planet hater, and Bush supporter?

    Now, be quiet and conform. How DARE you point out inconsistencies...er, lies spread by Fox News with regards to the global warming hysteria...er, concerned scientist movement?

    Why will you not simply do what The Goracle said to do? Why do you hate America? Why do you hate children and small animals? Have you stopped beating your wife?

    /liberal wacko blather (just wanted to get it out of the way)
  • Suaves2102, on 10/16/2009, -19/+3*insert global warming comment*
  • CapnSlam, on 10/16/2009, -20/+4Once again, the wing nut, tinfoil hat crowd on the far right will over look what a great American hero Chairman Mau was
  • halyard, on 10/16/2009, -17/+2Climate change must be stopped! Global warming uses its panties to tie its hair back and makes people hate Obama.

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.