1 saying it's partisan is idiotic. it is in fact science. Until you can just see the science and not politics you can't see the science. This idea that all the world's scientists are in on some liberal conspiracy is moronic and furthers shows the ignorance of science of these people. 2 you so misunderstood the article that the rest of your argument is a joke 3 the volcano stuff is just plain wrong, levels of CO2 are now higher by 35% within 200 years because of man, not volcanoes, this has been proved by isotope analysis But hey look, it's not the end of the world, mankind won't go away. We may take a 30% reduction in population. Half the species will probably survive. We don't need coral reefs, old growth forests, salt marshes, low lying areas etc.
Yes, this melting is no more unusual than the drought that the middle of the US is having. But considering that over the last thirty years? the arctic ice has lost an area the size of Europe, maybe it should not be too surprising that Greenland could catch a warm wet wind. The jet stream meanders are also slowing they think because of the ice loss so weather stays one way for longer now.
What they are saying, however, is it's not conclusive that man is the primary cause because this event has occurred at regular intervals. The first thing I learned about meteorology in the Nav was the 3 cell theory of circulation. If you understand the theory of circulation (which I'm sure you do), you understand why severe droughts, wet spells, abnormal heat and cold are not unusual when taken over a significant period of time. You mentioned 30 years. Did you know there is a 30 year repeating hurricane cycle? 30 years is not enough time to reach a conclusion regarding AGW. http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm As a science guy, you are well aware that the patterns of the jets are not consistent from year to year, or even decade to decade. Can artificial warming be a factor? Certainly. I'm not disputing that. But even so, it can only be one of 100's, if not 1000's af variables. I read that ice ages have developed in as little as a few hundred years with mini ages forming in less than 100, (not including the great eruptions and the global winters they produced in a few short years), so why should we automatically assume a warm cycle cannot develop as quickly. I'm not smart enough to dispute the climate scientists and their models, but I have enough experience regarding meteorology to know that even at the most basic level of the inexact science, huge amounts of extrapolation are sometimes required (this was especially true when I was launching weather balloons in the early 80's). Just think how much extrapolation is needed when crossing geological timelines and determining atmospheric models using geology as your primary guide (adding in the removal of the volcanoes and other anomalies...one recent ice age was thought by some to have begun due to an asteroid or large meteor strike). Even with scientific consensus, the gov in a free society needs to make it worthwhile for change without using force. Then it no longer matters if someone believes or not. At that point, you will then need to get the new industrial powers on board through leading by example. I don't see that happening anytime soon, do you?
Yeah but if we wait until the data is conclusive we'll all be dead from AGW! so we gotta panic now & destroy civilization in order to "maybe" save it .
Absolutely. No one unusual event by itself can be attributed to GW. But these unusual events are becoming more usual. This is what can be expected when more energy is in the atmosphere. I agree that predicting weather is somewhat like predicting chaos, but look at well they can do it these days. Hurricane tracks are well predicted. Noreasters now are seen a full week ahead of time. The big change from when you were releasing balloons is of course computers. Yes climate and CO2 levels have changed in the past. Seas were 200 feet higher than today. But the rate of change of CO2 and temps that we're seeing today is unprecedented. In the past, 8 gigatons of CO2 per year were not being added to the air like we're doing today. Levels of CO2 are up around 35% since the industrial revolution when they started departing from normal trends. It's due to the burning of fossil fuels. Of course CO2 is like a blanket so the higher levels are warming us up. Consider this chart....
We're having a drought, particularly in the Great Plains. Obviously, it is the result of AGW, right? Except we had an even worse drought back in the 1930's. They called it the Dustbowl. It inspired popular fiction, eg John Steinbeck's award-winning Grapes of Wrath.