Rosen decried "selective representation" of global warming effects after letting his guest get away with it
Summary: Discussing global warming with his guest, author Lawrence Solomon, Newsradio 850 KOA's Mike Rosen allowed Solomon to evade a caller's question about "how the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is disappearing" and refer instead to Antarctica, which Solomon claimed is "gaining ice," according to satellite data. Rosen then asserted that "global warming alarmists" provide "selective presentation of ice melting" and "ignore ice cap expansion someplace else because it doesn't suit their agenda."
As a guest on the April 22 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show, writer Lawrence Solomon responded to a caller's question regarding global warming in light of a National Geographic article "about how the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is disappearing" by stating that in Antarctica some regions experience melting, and claiming, "The satellite data shows that, on balance, Antarctica is gaining ice." After allowing Solomon to evade the caller's question about ice melt in the Arctic, host Mike Rosen claimed that "global warming alarmists" provide "selective presentation of ice melting" and "ignore ice cap expansion someplace else because it doesn't suit their agenda."
Rosen and Solomon, who is the executive director of the Urban Renaissance Institute, were discussing Solomon's book The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud* *And those who are too fearful to do so (Richard Vigilante Books, April 2008).
Consistent with the caller's statement, in August 2007 National Geographic reported, "There is less sea ice in the Arctic than ever before recorded, thanks in part to a warm, sunny summer, a climate scientist said today. And the melting season isn't even over." The article reported the views of a senior scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) that the Arctic might be completely free of ice by 2030:
Sea ice -- frozen, floating seawater -- melts and refreezes with the seasons, but some of the ice persists year-round in the Arctic.
The current rate of sea ice melt is much faster than predicted by computer models of the global climate system.
Just last year the National Snow and Ice Data Center's [Mark] Serreze said that the Arctic was "right on schedule" to be completely free of ice by 2070 at the soonest. He now thinks that day may arrive by 2030.
"There's talk of a tipping point, where we thin the ice down sufficiently so that at some point large parts of it can't survive the summer melt season anymore, so we see this very rapid decline in ice cover," he said.
"It's quite conceivable that that tipping point we talk about has already been reached."
Particularly warm and sunny weather in the Arctic this summer has helped speed up the pace of the melt, Serreze said. But the sea ice decline is part of a decades' long trend.
In the dark days of the winter, some sea ice grows back. Overall, however, the ice pack has thinned.
"It's really a reflection of what's been happening over the past 30 years -- this general pattern of warming, this general pattern of thinner and thinner ice, which makes it more vulnerable," he said. [emphasis added]
The NSICD, which is part of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder, also reported on October 1, 2007, that "Arctic sea ice during the 2007 melt season plummeted to the lowest levels since satellite measurements began in 1979." The agency further noted that "Arctic sea ice receded so much that the fabled Northwest Passage completely opened for the first time in human memory."
Prompted by Rosen to respond to the caller's question about Arctic ice melt, Solomon instead referred to Antarctica, which he stated was "gaining ice" according to "satellite data."
From the April 22 broadcast of Newsradio 850 KOA's The Mike Rosen Show:
CALLER: Hey, I take National Geographic magazine because I really like the pretty pictures inside. And in recent issues, they have a article about how the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is disappearing. And, of course, they're blaming that on global warming. Does anybody have any explanation for this?
ROSEN: Lawrence?
SOLOMON: Well, the ice in the caps of -- has always been melting, freezing, melting, freezing. It's been a natural process. There's only one way to tell, in the case of the Antarctic, whether overall there's more melting or freezing, and that's using satellites. Antarctica is such an enormous continent and so completely inaccessible -- except in very few locations -- that only satellites can tell whether on balance there's been a gain of ice or a loss of ice. We know that some areas cool and some areas warm. And we've seen all these dramatic pictures of calving in Antarctica. The satellite data shows that, on balance, Antarctica is gaining ice. So it's not melting on balance. It's melting in some areas. But not on balance.
ROSEN: And, of course, that's a natural phenomenon that long predates human activity on this planet. And what you tend to get from the doomsdayers and the global warming alarmists is selective presentation of ice melting or shrinkage here, and at the same time they ignore ice cap expansion someplace else because it doesn't suit their agenda.
Supporting Solomon's statement that in Antarctica "some areas cool and some areas warm" is the Fourth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was released in February 2007. Among the studies it cited was one showing growth of the ice sheet in East Antarctica and losses in West Antarctica. In summary, the IPCC stated, "Antarctica appears to be losing mass at least partly in response to recent ice flow acceleration in some near-coastal regions, although with greater uncertainty in overall balance than for Greenland."
National Geographic reported in a January 2008 article that a more recent study by the University of Bristol "found that for Antarctica overall, the ice loss increased about 75 percent over the ten-year period, from 112 gigatons of ice per year in 1996 to 196 gigatons of ice per year in 2006." National Geographic further reported:
As to whether Antarctica will lose or gain ice as global warming proceeds, the measurements disagree with existing climate models that suggest "[the ice sheet] is going to get bigger because of increased snowfall with warming temperatures," [study co-author Jonathan] Bamber said.
"We don't see that. We see the ice sheet losing mass," he said. "So there's a bit of a paradigm shift in what the ice sheet has done recently and what it could do in the future."
According to the January 13 press release accompanying the study, which was published in the journal Nature Geoscience, "Over the 10 year time period of the survey, the ice sheet as a whole was certainly losing mass":
Over the 10 year time period of the survey, the ice sheet as a whole was certainly losing mass, and the mass loss increased by 75% during this time. Most of the mass loss is from the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica and the northern tip of the Peninsula where it is driven by ongoing, pronounced glacier acceleration. In East Antarctica, the mass balance is near zero, but the thinning of its potentially vulnerable marine sectors suggests this may change in the near future.
—E.B.
to listen to this audio clip


Comments (4) Show
1 - 4 |
Great work CMM. And to the staffer/s that fought his/her/their way through the tooth pulling that is the ancient buffoon's program......Thank You! You're bludgeoning this fraud so no one else has to endure him. That you back every gotcha up with facts separates you from rosey and his ilk.
Maybe Lawrence Solomon could not believe that the Arctic Ice Melting story is still being considered by the caller as significant. If that’s the case this post by Noel Sheppard of last September should put his fears to rest: The record melting of the passage comes two weeks after the NSIDC and two other ice-monitoring agencies in the U.S. and Japan declared that the Arctic Ocean ice cover has shrunk to its smallest size since regular satellite imaging of the polar cap began in 1979.[...]"[A]nalysts at the Canadian Ice Service and the U.S. National Ice Center confirm that the passage is almost completely clear and that the region is more open than it has ever been since the advent of routine monitoring in 1972." Getting the picture? Claims of "grim consequences" and "record low" ice levels are based on a satellite record which began in 1979, while routine monitoring of the region started in 1972.How can anyone make a claim with a straight face that ice conditions in the Arctic are either historically low or grim when we've only been monitoring these levels for the last 35 years? Is everything that happened in this region - in thousands of millennia since the Big Bang occurred - totally irrelevant?Such is especially the case given the history of successful sea-based explorations of the Arctic dating back as far as 1903.For instance, a name media would love for global warming alarmists not to know is Roald Amundsen, a Norwegian explorer who successfully navigated the Northwest Passage on August 26, 1905 (h/t Walt Bennett, Jr.):The North West Passage was done. My boyhood dream - at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn - it was weakness in me - but I felt tears in my eyes. 'Vessel in sight' ... Vessel in sight.Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this Passage was clear enough of ice for a wooden sailboat, with a crew of seven, to successfully navigate it more than 100 years ago. How many times in the history of the planet do you think a similar - or even more ice-free - condition existed in this area?Not that the media cares, but this Passage was also conquered several times in the 1940s (emphasis added):Built for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force to serve as a supply ship for isolated, far-flung Arctic RCMP detachments, St. Roch was also designed to serve when frozen in for the winter, as a floating detachment, with its constables mounting dog sled patrols from the ship. Between 1929 and 1939 St. Roch made three voyages to the Arctic. Between 1940 and 1942 St. Roch navigated the Northwest Passage, arriving in Halifax harbor on October 11, 1942. St. Roch was the second ship to make the passage, and the first to travel the passage from west to east. In 1944, St. Roch returned to Vancouver via the more northerly route of the Northwest Passage, making her run in 86 days. The epic voyages of St. Roch demonstrated Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic during the difficult wartime years, and extended Canadian control over its vast northern territories.Putting it all together, when you consider that serious monitoring of Arctic ice levels only started in 1972, and that explorers successfully navigated these seas in relatively archaic ships 60 and 100 years ago, how can anybody honestly claim that today's conditions in this region are in any way unprecedented, historic, or grim?Beyond this, as the planet entered a warming phase in 1975, isn't it not at all surprising that ice levels in this area are lower now than then? Wouldn't an honest media always point out the existence of this trend rather than presenting data exclusively from this period that conveniently ignores everything prior? Sadly, this is the disingenuousness we see from today's press which continually make hysterical historical claims that intentionally ignore historical facts.How disgraceful.
Just want to add to what E.B. said. The Arctic currently has more sea ice than at this time last year (see http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ for images comparing sea ice since 1979). All the media has ever reported is the sea-ice loss that occurred thru October 2007. But it's back now and thicker than last year. How do you explain that? I think you need to get off Solomon's case and do some global warming research on your own. It won't happen because you are a liberal organization in cahoots with Al Gore. Hey - how about investigating the multi-millions Al is making and will make if legislation on global warming gets passed! Oh by the way, have you read that the average global temperature has decreased since 1998 and, get this, CO2 was increasing! Where's the correlation? All four agencies that track Earth’s temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. How about reporting that?
Ok, I took the bait. I bit on the arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/. From there I followed the trail. Any body can do the same. "Global warming alarmists"? You gotta be kidding me! Your own references just torpedoed you! No, I think NASA and NOAA will suffice. Some how "institutes" funded by energy corporations just don't seem to be as reliable as science.
1 - 20 |