Global Warming

[jdobbin]

Weather changes, but millienia-old ice caps don't normally just disappear over a few years. And I'm not sure politicians can do much about it now, but it's kind of like chemotherapy. It's not fun and it probably won't work, but you have no choice but to try.

Get ready to be jumped all over for making such an absurd suggestion that the caps are melting quickly, Bubber. And even if they are, it isn't man-made melting.

[B. Max]

Get ready to be jumped all over for making such an absurd suggestion that the caps are melting quickly, Bubber. And even if they are, it isn't man-made melting.

But there is a problem in the global warming utopia. The caps are not melting away.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H

[jdobbin]

But there is a problem in the global warming utopia. The caps are not melting away.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H

Another discredited article from Exxon paid Patrick Michaels?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405200001

[B. Max]

But there is a problem in the global warming utopia. The caps are not melting away.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H

Another discredited article from Exxon paid Patrick Michaels?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405200001

Typical of the left to think that smear tactics give them credibility. When you can't dispute the facts attack the person.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...global-warming/

[shoggoth]

Get ready to be jumped all over for making such an absurd suggestion that the caps are melting quickly, Bubber. And even if they are, it isn't man-made melting.

But there is a problem in the global warming utopia. The caps are not melting away.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H

The arctic cap certainly is

[B. Max]

Get ready to be jumped all over for making such an absurd suggestion that the caps are melting quickly, Bubber. And even if they are, it isn't man-made melting.

But there is a problem in the global warming utopia. The caps are not melting away.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H

The arctic cap certainly is

Not really. There is nothing historically unusual happening.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...secret/#more-95

[shoggoth]

Get ready to be jumped all over for making such an absurd suggestion that the caps are melting quickly, Bubber. And even if they are, it isn't man-made melting.

But there is a problem in the global warming utopia. The caps are not melting away.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H

The arctic cap certainly is

Not really. There is nothing historically unusual happening.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...secret/#more-95

Greenland does not represent the entire arctic ice cap. Arctic sea ice is melting, fast enough to be obvious:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...ce_decline.html

Recent satellite analysis from Greenland indicated it was losing ice overall too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6069506.stm

So overall the arctic ice cap is definitely melting.

Whether or not there is anything historically unusual happening

[jdobbin]

Typical of the left to think that smear tactics give them credibility. When you can't dispute the facts attack the person.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...global-warming/

Typical of the right wing to use a guy who to back up their claims who has been debated point by point and didn't succeed in convincing any credible scientist of his work.

"The '300 percent' error claim comes from noted climate skeptic Patrick Michaels who in testimony in congress in 1998 deleted the bottom two curves in order to give the impression that the models were unreliable."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

[jbg]

The arctic cap certainly is

Not really. There is nothing historically unusual happening.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...secret/#more-95

Greenland does not represent the entire arctic ice cap. Arctic sea ice is melting, fast enough to be obvious:

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...ce_decline.html

Recent satellite analysis from Greenland indicated it was losing ice overall too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6069506.stm

So overall the arctic ice cap is definitely melting.

Whether or not there is anything historically unusual happening

I have a question, Mr. Shoggoth. Did the explorers trying to find a Northwest passage, such as Franklin (for whom the District of Franklin was named before the politically correct and absurd "Nunavut" was created) try to sail smack into solid ice? I doubt it. They must have had extensive leads of melted water to try to said into.

I'm with M.Max on this one. Certainly, Greenland (and Antarctica) are more important to the world on the sea-level issue, since if pack ice melts it has no effect on the overall water level, but if Antarctic or Greenland ice melts, it does.

The other thing that you should note is that when the US Northeast (and the more populated areas of Canada from Calgary east) have severe cold and blizzards, the arctic is generally wam, as the result of the North Atlantic Oscillation referred to in one of those articles. Put simply, if the Icelandic Low is firmly in place, at the surface and aloft, a strong west-to-east (zonal) jet stream sets up thta pens the cold air to its north, and sweeps mild Pacific air across the country. That is why New York City and Toronto are experiencing April in December. I would bet that Ellesmere and northern Greenland are well below normal this winter.

If, on the other hand, high pressure builds around the Iceland-Southern Greenland area, warm air is pulled into the upper reaches of the Arctic, near the pole, creating the alarming stories of open water. However, to the south, places like New York City often look like good habitat for caribou and musk ox. The high pressure near Iceland/Greenland acts as a "block", which disrupts the zonal jet stream flow. Instead, a serpentine pattern sets up with strong northwest to southeast flow just east of the Rockies (upper atmosphere). This brings down to both countries' midsections brutally cold air-masses birthed in the 24 hour darkness of Northern Canada, Alaska and Siberia. The temperature contrasts with warm water in the Atlantic fuel intense Nor'easters which sometimes bring large amounts of snow, and biting cold, to the US northeast. Sometimes, a storm such as "White Juan" that pounded Halifax results.

Remember, if North is cold, South is warm, and vice-versa. Kyoto has nothing to do with this.

[shoggoth]

I have a question, Mr. Shoggoth. Did the explorers trying to find a Northwest passage, such as Franklin (for whom the District of Franklin was named before the politically correct and absurd "Nunavut" was created) try to sail smack into solid ice? I doubt it. They must have had extensive leads of melted water to try to said into.

But clearly not enough. Recently however the northwest passage has become easier to sail through in summer months due to lower ice cover caused by melt. With continuing melt it might even become usable as a commercial shipping lane.

I'm with M.Max on this one. Certainly, Greenland (and Antarctica) are more important to the world on the sea-level issue, since if pack ice melts it has no effect on the overall water level, but if Antarctic or Greenland ice melts, it does.

Sure, but that doesn't equal saying the polar ice caps are not melting. The arctic ice cap definitely is. Greenland looks likely to be losing more ice than it's gaining per year too, although not a significant amount. Antarctica looks more balanced and the sign isn't even well known.

The other thing that you should note is that when the US Northeast (and the more populated areas of Canada from Calgary east) have severe cold and blizzards, the arctic is generally wam, as the result of the North Atlantic Oscillation referred to in one of those articles. Put simply, if the Icelandic Low is firmly in place, at the surface and aloft, a strong west-to-east (zonal) jet stream sets up thta pens the cold air to its north, and sweeps mild Pacific air across the country. That is why New York City and Toronto are experiencing April in December. I would bet that Ellesmere and northern Greenland are well below normal this winter.

If, on the other hand, high pressure builds around the Iceland-Southern Greenland area, warm air is pulled into the upper reaches of the Arctic, near the pole, creating the alarming stories of open water. However, to the south, places like New York City often look like good habitat for caribou and musk ox. The high pressure near Iceland/Greenland acts as a "block", which disrupts the zonal jet stream flow. Instead, a serpentine pattern sets up with strong northwest to southeast flow just east of the Rockies (upper atmosphere). This brings down to both countries' midsections brutally cold air-masses birthed in the 24 hour darkness of Northern Canada, Alaska and Siberia. The temperature contrasts with warm water in the Atlantic fuel intense Nor'easters which sometimes bring large amounts of snow, and biting cold, to the US northeast. Sometimes, a storm such as "White Juan" that pounded Halifax results.

Remember, if North is cold, South is warm, and vice-versa. Kyoto has nothing to do with this.

The melting of arctic polar ice is a long term trend which makes most sense in light of the long term warming trend seen there. What you are describing above seems to be an explaination for why a given year or two might be warmer or cooler in the arctic that usual, rather than an explaination for a long term trend.

[jbg]

The melting of arctic polar ice is a long term trend which makes most sense in light of the long term warming trend seen there. What you are describing above seems to be an explaination for why a given year or two might be warmer or cooler in the arctic that usual, rather than an explaination for a long term trend.

If Franklin could sail in as the central part of the archipalegro (sp), that period must have provided plenty of open water. My own, admittedly non-educated guess is that the period of arctic exploration (for a northwest route) corresponded with the era that Dickens was writing and the era that the US was colonized (quite a cold period down there) the same "blocking" conditions would have created arctic warmth.

[sunsettommy]

But there is a problem in the global warming utopia. The caps are not melting away.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=030306H

Another discredited article from Exxon paid Patrick Michaels?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405200001

What is a rebuttal?

[sunsettommy]

jbg:

I have a question, Mr. Shoggoth. Did the explorers trying to find a Northwest passage, such as Franklin (for whom the District of Franklin was named before the politically correct and absurd "Nunavut" was created) try to sail smack into solid ice? I doubt it. They must have had extensive leads of melted water to try to said into.

I'm with M.Max on this one. Certainly, Greenland (and Antarctica) are more important to the world on the sea-level issue, since if pack ice melts it has no effect on the overall water level, but if Antarctic or Greenland ice melts, it does.

The other thing that you should note is that when the US Northeast (and the more populated areas of Canada from Calgary east) have severe cold and blizzards, the arctic is generally wam, as the result of the North Atlantic Oscillation referred to in one of those articles. Put simply, if the Icelandic Low is firmly in place, at the surface and aloft, a strong west-to-east (zonal) jet stream sets up thta pens the cold air to its north, and sweeps mild Pacific air across the country. That is why New York City and Toronto are experiencing April in December. I would bet that Ellesmere and northern Greenland are well below normal this winter.

If, on the other hand, high pressure builds around the Iceland-Southern Greenland area, warm air is pulled into the upper reaches of the Arctic, near the pole, creating the alarming stories of open water. However, to the south, places like New York City often look like good habitat for caribou and musk ox. The high pressure near Iceland/Greenland acts as a "block", which disrupts the zonal jet stream flow. Instead, a serpentine pattern sets up with strong northwest to southeast flow just east of the Rockies (upper atmosphere). This brings down to both countries' midsections brutally cold air-masses birthed in the 24 hour darkness of Northern Canada, Alaska and Siberia. The temperature contrasts with warm water in the Atlantic fuel intense Nor'easters which sometimes bring large amounts of snow, and biting cold, to the US northeast. Sometimes, a storm such as "White Juan" that pounded Halifax results.

Remember, if North is cold, South is warm, and vice-versa. Kyoto has nothing to do with this.

Referring to this?

Increased Hurricanes And Increased Winter Snowfall – How They Are Related by Joe Daleo

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006...are-related-by/

The PDO phase maybe the main cause of warming in the artic.

SNIP:

WHAT IS BEHIND THIS SNOWFALL BLITZ?

Snowfall here in the Northeast and across much of the Hemisphere relate to decadal scale cycles in the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic.

When the Pacific Decadal Oscillation flipped from its cold to warm mode in the Great Pacific Climate Shift in 1978, El Nino frequency increased. In the warm PDO mode, more El Ninos are favored (this cycle two to one) over La Ninas, and when they are weak to moderate this often translates into heavy snows in the eastern United States, especially when the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation (QBO) is west.

CPC research by Livesey, Barnston and Halpert over a decade ago (Journal of Climate 1991) showed how a west QBO El Nino favors the positive PNA pattern with an eastern trough which predisposes the east to east coast storms. When the El Ninos are not strong, this means heavy snow for the east coast. Indeed 2/3rds of the top dozen heaviest snow years since the 1870s for Boston were weaker El Nino West QBO seasons.

Also important to the snow increases has been a shift of two atmospheric oscillations which generally operate in tandem, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillations (AO). These oscillations have significant control over the weather pattern including winter storm tracks and temperatures in both Europe and the eastern United States.

(look for the charts in the link that fallows this snipped section)

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006...are-related-by/

[sunsettommy]

Then we have this from American Meteorological Society,

Abstract View

Volume 18, Issue 22 (November 2005)

Journal of Climate

Article: pp. 4824–4839 | Full Text | PDF (2.21M)

The Significance of the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift in the Climatology of Alaska

Brian Hartmann and Gerd Wendler

Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska

ABSTRACT

The 1976 Pacific climate shift is examined, and its manifestations and significance in Alaskan climatology during the last half-century are demonstrated. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation index shifted in 1976 from dominantly negative values for the 25-yr time period 1951–75 to dominantly positive values for the period 1977–2001.

Mean annual and seasonal temperatures for the positive phase were up to 3.1°C higher than for the negative phase. Likewise, mean cloudiness, wind speeds, and precipitation amounts increased, while mean sea level pressure and geopotential heights decreased. The pressure decrease resulted in a deepening of the Aleutian low in winter and spring. The intensification of the Aleutian low increased the advection of relatively warm and moist air to Alaska and storminess over the state during winter and spring.

The regime shift is also examined for its effect on the long-term temperature trends throughout the state. The trends that have shown climatic warming are strongly biased by the sudden shift in 1976 from the cooler regime to a warmer regime. When analyzing the total time period from 1951 to 2001, warming is observed; however, the 25-yr period trend analyses before 1976 (1951–75) and thereafter (1977–2001) both display cooling, with a few exceptions. In this paper, emphasis is placed on the importance of taking into account the sudden changes that result from abrupt climatic shifts, persistent regimes, and the possibility of cyclic oscillations, such as the PDO, in the analysis of long-term climate change in Alaska.

Manuscript received 20 April 2004, in final form 25 February 2005

DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3532.1

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?reques...75%2FJCLI3532.1

There is a PDF for more.If you are a subscriber.

This again shows how a cyclical warming affects Alaska and on into the polar region.

[jbg]

Then we have this from American Meteorological Society,

Abstract View

Volume 18, Issue 22 (November 2005)

Journal of Climate

Article: pp. 4824–4839 | Full Text | PDF (2.21M)

The Significance of the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift in the Climatology of Alaska

Brian Hartmann and Gerd Wendler

Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska

*snip*

This focus on NAO and PDO gives the "warming fanatics" apoplexy, since it provides an alternate and more readily believable explanation for climate change than the Chicken Little approach of the Kyoto fraudsters.

[shoggoth]

Then we have this from American Meteorological Society,

Abstract View

Volume 18, Issue 22 (November 2005)

Journal of Climate

Article: pp. 4824–4839 | Full Text | PDF (2.21M)

The Significance of the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift in the Climatology of Alaska

Brian Hartmann and Gerd Wendler

Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska

*snip*

This focus on NAO and PDO gives the "warming fanatics" apoplexy, since it provides an alternate and more readily believable explanation for climate change than the Chicken Little approach of the Kyoto fraudsters.

Well this researcher wouldn't be convinced by that argument:

http://www.esi-topics.com/gwarm/interviews...mesHurrell.html

We know the ocean in the North Atlantic is being forced by the atmosphere. What I did with some of my colleagues—the lead author is Marty Hoerling—is argue that this trend observed in the North Atlantic climate is due to a warming trend in the tropical oceans. This is another remote forcing. We know that El Niño changes on a year-to-year time scale. This paper is arguing that on a much longer time scale—30,40, maybe 50 years—the warming of the tropical oceans has caused this trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation. Now getting back to the issue of anthropogenic vs. natural climate change. There's the question. Why are the tropical oceans warming? It's very possible that warming is a result of anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gasses. If that's the case, then the change we're seeing in the North Atlantic Oscillation could be an anthropogenic signal.

[jbg]

Well, is this year's "positive" NAO or the "negative" NAO of 2000-1, 2002-3, 2003-4, or 2004-5 anthropogenic?

[shoggoth]

Well, is this year's "positive" NAO or the "negative" NAO of 2000-1, 2002-3, 2003-4, or 2004-5 anthropogenic?

I don't know. But it seems to me from reading about the NAO that it's considered an effect of climate being driven, and is not a driver itself. It certainly doesn't look like anyone is trying to explain global warming as being caused by the NAO, or any other such oscillation

[jbg]

Well, is this year's "positive" NAO or the "negative" NAO of 2000-1, 2002-3, 2003-4, or 2004-5 anthropogenic?

I don't know. But it seems to me from reading about the NAO that it's considered an effect of climate being driven, and is not a driver itself. It certainly doesn't look like anyone is trying to explain global warming as being caused by the NAO, or any other such oscillation

I've heard that argument, about the effect of ocean temps being anthropogenic, but that argument is weak, given the apparent random distribution of "blocking" and "non-blocking" series of years.

[sunsettommy]

Well this researcher wouldn't be convinced by that argument:

http://www.esi-topics.com/gwarm/interviews...mesHurrell.html

We know the ocean in the North Atlantic is being forced by the atmosphere. What I did with some of my colleagues—the lead author is Marty Hoerling—is argue that this trend observed in the North Atlantic climate is due to a warming trend in the tropical oceans. This is another remote forcing. We know that El Niño changes on a year-to-year time scale. This paper is arguing that on a much longer time scale—30,40, maybe 50 years—the warming of the tropical oceans has caused this trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation. Now getting back to the issue of anthropogenic vs. natural climate change. There's the question. Why are the tropical oceans warming? It's very possible that warming is a result of anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gasses. If that's the case, then the change we're seeing in the North Atlantic Oscillation could be an anthropogenic signal.

How come he left out the Sun?

The sun has increased significantly in its output since the 1950's.Surely that would help warm the oceans.

This is a common error most researchers make in excluding the sun and focusing on the "greenhouse gases".

[sunsettommy]

Well, is this year's "positive" NAO or the "negative" NAO of 2000-1, 2002-3, 2003-4, or 2004-5 anthropogenic?

I don't know. But it seems to me from reading about the NAO that it's considered an effect of climate being driven, and is not a driver itself. It certainly doesn't look like anyone is trying to explain global warming as being caused by the NAO, or any other such oscillation

I've heard that argument, about the effect of ocean temps being anthropogenic, but that argument is weak, given the apparent random distribution of "blocking" and "non-blocking" series of years.

They also existed before the alleged anthropogenic forcing could have made an impact.

Consider the massive shift in the 1976 PDO event.Then little change after that.

[shoggoth]

How come he left out the Sun?

The sun has increased significantly in its output since the 1950's.Surely that would help warm the oceans.

This is a common error most researchers make in excluding the sun and focusing on the "greenhouse gases".

Here's plenty of different solar related trends, but none show any significant increase in the past 50 years:

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/solar.htm

[sunsettommy]

Here's plenty of different solar related trends, but none show any significant increase in the past 50 years:

LOL,

Your own link clearly shows that from the 1930's the world warms up right along with the increase in the suns sunspot counts.

Look at the second chart.The Sun was showing a long term increase that made the world also go into the VERY SAME LONG TERM TEMPERATURE INCREASE.

Then we look at the Solar irradiance increases that also shows a very clear relationship of global warming.That would be the third chart.

There is a relationship that chart #2 and # 3 show that when the sun is going in a specific increase or decrease trend.The worlds temperature responds right along with it.With some lag time shown.

During the LIA there is good evidence of a distinct reduction of both sunspot numbers and solar radiance.The planet showed this by COOLING down.Then when the sunspot counts started going back up in the early 1800's the planet soon started warming up again.

This was discussed for years during the 1960's and 1970's.

It is amazing that todays scientists fail to see the whole picture.Have they forgotten the links of solar reduction to planet cooling in earlier historical periods?

The surface temperatures as provided by CRU is for the land surface only.A small area of the planets surface that is spottily covered by a patchwork of reporting station of variable quality.

What about the oceans?

The Suns heating effect is actually most pronounced on the SURFACE of the planet and on the Oceans SURFACE not in the atmosphere.

The Earths surfaces are the main absorbing medium of direct solar radiance.The planets surface absorbs and then reradiate them as LONGER WAVES that are then in part absorbed by the "greenhouse gases" and also reflected back towards the surface in part by clouds.The rest goes right back into space outside of the earths atmosphere.

The oceans with about 78% of the surface where little temperature reporting stations are found.The surface is absorbing and reflecting INCOMING solar radiation.

The land surface with about 21% of the surface where temperature reporting stations are placed in irregular locations and of variable quality.The surface is absorbing and reflecting INCOMING solar radiation.

Here is a link to a chart that shows the dominant role of the sun.It is based on it:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kieh...h-1997_Fig7.jpg

Here is the simplified version:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Radiation_Budget.gif

That is basically how the atmosphere get warmed up.

Keep in mind that the sun shines over the ENTIRE world.The weather reporting stations as used by NASA and CRU irregularly covers just the land surface area.Then too the QUALITY of the temperature data is variable depending on the location,The Urban Heating effect of decades in the Urban areas and the lack of reporting centers worldwide.

It would be nice if we had the ocean surface temperature data included from 1880's to greatly improve the charts plotting to a more accurate degree.There is a lag signal in the ones you showed me.If we had a lot more data and increased quality.We would have a better picture on the temperature lags when considering the suns sunspot and solar irradiance changes involved.

Look I am glad you are doing what you are doing.You are an honest debator and make a good effort to marshall information.

But you sometimes fail to see the whole picture.

[shoggoth]

Here's plenty of different solar related trends, but none show any significant increase in the past 50 years:

LOL,

Your own link clearly shows that from the 1930's the world warms up right along with the increase in the suns sunspot counts.

It's known that the early 20th century warming is likely to be mostly solar caused given the significant solar increase then. But in a way that makes it harder to explain the last 30 years of warming given no such significant increase in solar activity in the past 50 years, but an equal amount of warming in the past 30.

During the LIA there is good evidence of a distinct reduction of both sunspot numbers and solar radiance.The planet showed this by COOLING down.Then when the sunspot counts started going back up in the early 1800's the planet soon started warming up again.

This was discussed for years during the 1960's and 1970's.

It's still believed to be true.

It is amazing that todays scientists fail to see the whole picture.Have they forgotten the links of solar reduction to planet cooling in earlier historical periods?

The last 30 years is critical to this issue. If we were just talking about a warming from 1900-1940 and nothing since then solar could explain all of 20th century warming. But there's also an equal amount of warming from 1970 onwards. Solar models can explain the early 20th century warming, but not the late 20th century warming (http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/m..._additivity.pdf). This suggests that something other than solar forcing is causing the late 20th century warming. Ie something else is the cause, and that's why AGW is accepted, not because it is proven, but because it is a good explaination using a well-known mechanism for an observation that currently has no other explaination.

The surface temperatures as provided by CRU is for the land surface only.A small area of the planets surface that is spottily covered by a patchwork of reporting station of variable quality.

What about the oceans?

The CRU provides sea surface temperature data too:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalie...01-2000mean.dat

The sst data alone show an 0.15C/yr warming trend from 1998-2006

Here is a link to a chart that shows the dominant role of the sun.It is based on it:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Kieh...h-1997_Fig7.jpg

Here is the simplified version:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Radiation_Budget.gif

The greenhouse effect is an amplification of solar forcing so without the sun there would be no greenhouse effect.

Keep in mind that the sun shines over the ENTIRE world.The weather reporting stations as used by NASA and CRU irregularly covers just the land surface area.Then too the QUALITY of the temperature data is variable depending on the location,The Urban Heating effect of decades in the Urban areas and the lack of reporting centers worldwide.

Sea surface temperature data is gathered from ships, and more recently also by satellites. Irregular coverage and urban heat island effect are two problems faced when compiling global average temperature trends, but these problems have been investigated and are being compensated for. Whether this is sufficient I don't personally know, but the scientific community seems to think so.

[BubberMiley]

I see the "warming fanatics" in the Bush administration are finally acknowledging the alarming rate of melting in the polar region and are calling for polar bears to be declared an at-risk species.