So much data available on global warming yet so much tut-tutting from the skeptics. We're finding out more every day, how subtle changes to the atmosphere are manifesting themselves in changes to weather patterns. It isn't possible to point to any single weather event and say it is a direct result of global warming; changes are measured in trends and tendencies, not single occurrences . But there is no shortage of warning signs, and there are enough examples of this already on this thread there's no point offering more.

The amazing thing is it's fashionable to label anyone advocating restraint - and yes, that includes cutting down on fuel usage, minimising ecological footprints and other such highbrow concepts - as 'elite'. The greatest achievement of the anti-intellectual crowd has been framing anyone championing the well-being of the world at large as out of touch.

My long-term prediction? There will come a day when tree-huggers the world over will be able to stand up and say "I told you so". Funny thing is, the wilfully (and blissfully) ignorant will still be proudly displaying their one-finger-salute, responding "It wasn't us"

Evidently bigmal is impressed by the scientific authority of The Weekly Standard and the outpourings of its contributors from the American Enterprise Institute.

It is true that right wing publications have been, shall we say, cautious in attaching credence to the evidence for global warming.

So let's hop over to that other esteemed right wing publication The Wall Street Journal, to see what it's been reporting.

Is Global Warming Killing Polar Bears?
By JIM CARLTON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 14, 2005; page B1

It may be the latest evidence of global warming: Polar bears are drowning.

Scientists for the first time have documented multiple deaths of polar bears off Alaska, where they likely drowned after swimming long distances in the ocean amid the melting of the Arctic ice shelf. The bears spend most of their time hunting and raising their young on ice floes.

In a quarter-century of aerial surveys of the Alaskan coastline before 2004, researchers from the U.S. Minerals Management Service said they typically spotted a lone polar bear swimming in the ocean far from ice about once every two years. Polar-bear drownings were so rare that they have never been documented in the surveys.

But in September 2004, when the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles north of the northern coast of Alaska, researchers counted 10 polar bears swimming as far as 60 miles offshore. Polar bears can swim long distances but have evolved to mainly swim between sheets of ice, scientists say...

While the government researchers won't speculate on why a climate change is taking place in the Arctic, environmentalists unconnected to the survey say U.S. policies emphasizing oil and gas development are exacerbating global warming, which is accelerating the melting of the ice. "For anyone who has wondered how global warming and reduced sea ice will affect polar bears, the answer is simple -- they die," said Richard Steiner, a marine-biology professor at the University of Alaska...

It took time for some skeptics to accept that the world was indeed round.

Others still argue, against overwhelming scientific evidence, that Darwinian evolution does not occur.

In the case of these two issues it really didn't matter.

In the case of climate change it matters a lot. Because climate change (unlike the shape of the world and the evolution of species) is a threat to humanity. And not even a future threat.

If we want to turn to experts, let's talk to psychologists about the human frailty of Denial. Its a natural reaction to imminent threat, so we should treat the skeptics with gentle compassion.

As for the science behind global warming, it is all but sealed

MikeM,

Well if the polar bears are declining, it can’t have much to do variations in the cover of sea ice, as the following graph depicts

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.area.jpg

The seasonal variation is huge compared with any marginal decline over recent years.

I still reckon your are an academic with a barrow to push, and probably one with a part-time job in a Member of Parliaments office.

Gecko,
The science is a long way from being sealed as you call it. The principal argument of the alarmists still rests upon highly suspect computer modelling, underpinned by almost fraudulent reporting akin to the Hwang case. I have yet to see a rebuttal of any worth to Douglas Hoyts table of win/lose/draw on the IPCC claims. The last time I looked it was still 28 /32 loss to the IPCC on claims that are just not proven, or are plainly falsified even by the current measurements.

Leigh,
Don’t give up because you might think you are unqualified. You don’t have to have a Ph.D. in mathematics or whatever, to follow what is happening. If you have had experience in business and government you will have a nose for a con job, and these people are adept at it. They do so precisely because of the arrogance of their position.

They think plebs can’t think, can’t read, and can’t make good decisions, have no experience on making decisions involving large sums of money, and have no experience in computing and data modelling. When you do your homework you will quickly learn that it is not as straight forward as they make it out to be. There is one golden rule though. Don’t get between a scientist and a bucket of money, particularly public money. A “greeny” scientist is even worse.

Seasonal variation is indeed huge. Lets look at further data from the same source - NSIDC, NASA and associates, http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2005/arcticice_decline.html .

QUOTE
On Sept. 21, 2005, sea ice extent dropped to 2.05 million sq. miles, the lowest extent yet recorded in the satellite record. Incorporating the 2005 minimum, with a projection for ice growth in the last few days of this September, brings the estimated decline in Arctic sea ice to 8.5 percent per decade...

Since 2002, satellite records have revealed unusually early onsets of springtime melting in the areas north of Alaska and Siberia. In addition, the 2004-2005 winter season showed a smaller recovery of sea ice extent than any previous winter in the satellite record...

"Since 1979, by using passive microwave satellite data, we've seen that Arctic perennial sea ice cover has been declining at 9.6 percent per decade," said Joey Comiso, senior scientist at GSFC...
END QUOTE

The satellite photos and animations in the link make it clear what is happening.

And from http://uanews.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/UANews.woa/6/wa/SRStoryDetails?ArticleID=11532

QUOTE
The current warming trends in the Arctic may shove the Arctic system into a seasonally ice-free state not seen for more than one million years... The melting is accelerating, and a team of researchers were unable to identify any natural processes that might slow the de-icing of the Arctic...

The past climates in the Arctic include glacial periods, where sea ice coverage expanded and ice sheets extended into Northern America and Europe, and warmer interglacial periods during which the ice retreats, as it has during the past 10,000 years.

By studying natural data loggers such as ice cores and marine sediments, scientists have a good idea what the “natural envelope” for Arctic climate variations has been for the past million years...

In addition to sea and land ice melting, Overpeck warned that permafrost—the permanently frozen layer of soil that underlies much of the Arctic—will melt and eventually disappear in some areas. Such thawing could release additional greenhouse gases stored in the permafrost for thousands of years, which would amplify human-induced climate change...
END QUOTE

Seasonal temperature variation is NOT indeed huge. Its within natural geological limits.

The estimated decline in Arctic sea ice to 8.5 percent per decade is a joke because scientists do not take take global energy sources and sink inventories into account. They are the LEAST competent to make such phoney extrapolations..

Since 2002, satellite records have revealed unusually early onsets of springtime melting in the areas north of Alaska and Siberia. This is because transfer of heat from temperate zones has been accelerated by accelerating coastal urbanisation, mining and agriculture. Subsequently this accelerates coastal ocean pollution plumes which act as major heat sinks. These increasingly large and persistent heat sinks are the media, like the base in a transistor, that facilitates extraordinary global energy movement to polar regions. They focus this energy transfer in particular to the roaring forties where much of the 'panic' melts are occurring.

Satellite photos and animations DO NOT make it clear what is happening because of INHOMOGENEITIES like the roaring forties wind systems where heat can be selectively trapped for half times of the order of weeks.

The current warming trends in the Arctic will not shove the Arctic system into a seasonally ice-free state. Overall melting is not accelerating but REGIONAL imbalances are occuring due to the redistribution of global heat mediated by coastal pollution plumes which are heat sink disturbances. Biology based teams of researchers are unable to identify any natural processes that might slow the de-icing of the Arctic because they have have forgotten physics 101 about black body radiation. The arctic is way above outer space in temperature and no matter how cold we THINK it is, it will still radiate a net amount of heat to space in the absence of sunlight.

to continue...