ice-level ozone falls victim to reactive bromine atoms released naturally from briny Arctic waters.

Summarizing the article - Something natural is occurring, and if something else happens, and if there are some other aggravating circumstances, then this can be packaged like a scary global warming story by the BBC.

"But a lot of this is speculation at the moment because so much of this information is new and we are not sure what to make of it."

Hi Guys,

They take a 15 month study and then say the sky is falling. Just trying to get more funding. Didn't Patrick post that the arctic sea ice is above average already for this year? You can't take a small data set like this and extrapolate it. There must be a multi decade study just to get enough data to start a theory. When you hear maybe or speculate or could be, these are alarm bells. Just wish the media would get out of this and stop publishing every little thing. But then again the media loves theater.

Slightly unrelated, but Congress has approved the energy bill and Bush will sign it very soon.

The corporate apologists stripped a couple provisions from the bill -- namely, the renewable standard and subsides to oil companies (err, "tax incentives") -- but it's still a good start. And I have no doubts that, in the next couple years, most states will have a renewable standard.

The bill will phase out those inefficient incandescent bulbs. I'm willing to donate one incandescent to the Smithsonian with a placard stating: "The free market -- always making the most efficient use of resources"

LOL

Hmmm...frazil ice huh?

Sounds like fun. Once again, they are taking measurments in a creek and extrapolating to the river.

WOW, if it really true that the energy bill will wipe out incandescent lighting, guess I need to start stocking up. The black market price ought to be enough to pay for my retirement.

If there is any naturally occuring molecule -- outside of hot gasses in a pyroclastic flow -- that is more damaging to living tissue than ozone, I don't know what it is.

Ozone and the witches brew it engenders with hydrocarbons on a hot summer day produces allergic reactions and, in vulnerable people such as the elderly, severe respiratory distress. I'm not so sure that the chemical service it provides is a greater good than its absence.

BrO produced from the reaction of O3 and bromine atom is itself pretty nasty reactive stuff which will not be stable in the presence of the hypothetical horde of invading pollutants from the south. [Flash: ExxonMobil announces plans to sell Arctic air as fuel].

So the "great global warming IF" in this article -- as in "IF temperatures increase and X happens, then the world will end" -- will most likely not come to pass.

notice a trend?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/nov/lo-hem-nov-pg.gif
as posted previously 7th warmest 8th warmest 9th warmest....Thre also jumping the gun on 2007 so when dec data comes in be prepared

Does anyone else here sense the crescendo of desperation by the alarmists? Time is indeed short.

A few more weeks of this weather and interest in global warming will drop off the radar. Even the Democrats might not be stupid enough to bring it up again during an election year, though they never cease to surprise me.

It was interesting to watch Gore's reaction to being slammed by the UK judge for misinformation in his movie. He took no responsibility for his overt BS and blamed everything on the scientists he heard it from. Can you guess who is being set up for the big fall? It certainly won't be Gore - he's not a scientist!

Lovely weather in Alaska -45F in Fairbanks. (Close to a record.) Won't be long before it finds it's way down here.
http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=fairbanks%2C+ak

First I am hardly a tree hugger. It is funny to make fun. Don't you think for one second that cleaning up the environment is a good idea. Or should we keep dumping our stuff out there and never come up with new technology to have a cleaner environment. Rather than think of excuses could we please all get on the same page and not just avoid reality. If for many years someone hit you on a brick on the same day will you continue going outside your house on that same day. Yet information over information says the earth warms yet you continue to say NO. It makes us all feel better that we do not live where there are hurricanes. However, if the earth has issues we are all threatened and that makes everyone freak and it is easy to agree with those that say it is OK. But will you rely over and over again the science that the earth is warming. It is a fact. I want to hear no more about the warming over 100 years if you don't have anything back 1,000 years you have nothing. It makes me crazy how people slam others because they believe in global warming. YOU ONLY HAVE 100 + years of data. So this is enough I guess. What can you say for the information. I do not care about the NE. Bastardi blasted the NOAA weather service the other day for writing history. Maybe a couple of degrees is important here or there. Is your information good or are you just happy with seeing it. I know what is happening now. NOT EL NINO OR LA NINA JUST OBSERVATIONS. Just the arctic. If it took millions of years for the earth to evolve why have we changed it so fast in less than 150 years. It is crazy. But that is just me. Let's all post a (healty or don't care). Do you want the environment to be ( healthy ) or ( Don't Care). Please do not answer like a politician. Just answer the question. One of two answers.

what is happening at cryosphere today?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ data is all over the place. Images still ok

what is happening at cryosphere today?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/ data is all over the place. Images still ok. They've put up a really good comparison of images current v past NH but of course its only for NH. I wonder why they don't put up same for SH?

That "frazil" ice is a new one to me. Ice can form down deep and float up to the surface? That would mean the arctic ice could grow thicker from the bottom as well as the top. I wonder how many computer modles include that?

Hey Mark, did you know those new-fangled light bulbs include mercury? Drop one, and you'd best move the children out. Disposing of millions of them will be problem.

I wouldn't much like to spend a winter at the north pole, but it seems the fellows on this boat are doing some good reserch. Wonder who funded them. "Environment Canada," and "Damocles" are new to me. If they have an agenda, it isn't obvious, and they do seem to be coming up with actual facts, which is always a refreshing change in climate studies.

However they fail to answer the burning question: Where exactly does Santa live up there?

Everyone who voted for the energy bill should be removed from office. This bill accomplishes absolutely nothing. For starters - How do they (Congress) figure they can tell the auto industry what to do and when to do it when they themselves have no clue as to what it will take to meet the demands, both technologically and monetarily. Secondly, the bill has no provisions for increasing energy production in the US, yet offered subsidies to foreign producers. As far as flourescent light bulbs? Well just don't accidently break one because then you have a mercury contamination/clean-up problem to contend with. Yes, what are we going to do about mercury ground contamination from discarded CFL bulbs in the near future. Ethanol? Read the latest report on how expanding farmlands to grow corn and the fertilizer that goes along with it is seriously damaging the aquatic environment at the mouth of the Mississipppi and at least 100 miles out into the Gulf.

In a nutshell, these proponents of man made global warming think they are gods themselves and are capable of controlling mother nature when all they are accomplishing is setting us up for ruination by other than global warming.

Brett,
So lowering levels of ozone in the lower atmosphere is a bad thing??????
I am perplexed by this article. Does this guy think ground level ozone is something we need? If so tell him to go to LA in the summer.

For those who are not aware of this OZONE found in the surface air is considered a major pollutant. It is a major irritant and bad for anybody with any lung disease especially for the young and elderly. I literally dissolves lung tissue. The US has set standards that any exposure to a level over 0.08 ppm for 8 hours is considered unhealthy.
http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html
As a matter of fact the US DEP has just revised its ozone standards
http://www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution/naaqsrev2007.html

LOL Obviously he has spent way too much time onboard the ship and does not understand Ozone in upper atmosphere good while Ozone in lower atmosphere very bad.
But this could be a good thing that happens with AGW…if there was such a thing.
However he did make one statement I would agree with:

“It tells us the layers in the ocean don't work in quite the way we thought they did."

Maybe we really don’t know enough about how Mother Nature works to believe those climate models.

"Hey Mark, did you know those new-fangled light bulbs include mercury? Drop one, and you'd best move the children out. Disposing of millions of them will be problem."

Caleb, did you know that the silver amalgam dental fillings we had been using for decades contain 100 times more mercury than the CFLs? Imagine that, anyone who has had a cavity filled has been walking around with far more mercury in their mouths than what is present in those CFLs.

Silly Caleb, being blinded by the right-wing noise machine. You're smarter than that.

If it took millions of years for the earth to evolve why have we changed it so fast in less than 150 years?....Do you want the environment to be ( healthy ) or ( Don't Care)?

JASON - I am an independent, and try to listen to both sides.

Your first question is really the issue. Skeptics would say mankind has changed the earth little or not at all, and present the evidence of past natural climate events to you to back up their position that current events are within the envelope of past natural events. They would then argue that since mankind is not causing this it is not only futile but also disasterously expensive and disruptive to try to control global temperature by reducing CO2 output. They believe that a choice must be made between CO2 control and things like high productivity farming, continued medical/drug research, and decreasing 3rd world poverty level through development. Even some prominent AGW believers say that the cost of reducing CO2 is not the best use of our limited resources, such as Bjorn Lomborg (see his COOL IT book).

As for your 2nd question everyone, be they alarmist or skeptic, wants the environment to be healthy. Skeptics would argue, again with data to back their position, that the most developed countries in the world are the cleanest as far as pollution is concerned.

Hey Mark, looks like mercury IS bad for fillings...
http://www.amalgam.org/

African dust causing Cooling. Intersting headline and I suppose explains the wickedly cold weather experienced in the North East so early into winter.

Reply: it cooled the sea surface waters of the North Atlantic in 2006.

ClaudeC,

Most of the alarmists are on the "skeptical" side of AGW. If you were truly an independent, you'd understand this.

Mark,

They stopped using those fillings that contained mercury because it isn't healthy. How many fillings does one have in their life? How many light bulbs does one use in their life? A hundred times more light bulbs than fillings? In which case, the amount of mercury is the same. If it is wrong to utilize those fillings then it is wrong to utilize those lightbulbs.

Isn't it odd how some hypocrytes call carbon dioxide a pollutant, but allow mercury? Mark, you sound like a fat-cat big-businessman, justifying pollution because it fits your agenda.

Which brings us to the pressing question: How many environmentalists does it take to change a lightbulb?

Lightbulbs are only remotely connected to the weather, but the La Nina is very connected, so I am shifting my attention over to that new thread. Thank you, Brett, for introducing the subject.

Mark - I don't understand your comment. Would you care to explain yourself?

Up to now the terms alarmist and skeptic have been very clear to virtually everyone. An alarmist is sounding the alarm that the earth is in trouble from AGW, and humans are in danger. A skeptic is one who doubts this position (AGW), typically by thinking that the earth is just going through natural cycles. But I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, which is why your comment needs explanation.

Do you have a problem with defining anti-AGW types as skeptics? If so, that's too bad, because the term skeptic, which many alarmists apply to AGW-unbelievers, is already pretty well entrenched.

"How many fillings does one have in their life? How many light bulbs does one use in their life?"

So, Caleb, you're telling me you plan on breaking 100 CFLs in your lifetime? LOL

Even though they have stopped analgam fillings, tens of millions of people walk around today with those filings in their mouths. It's hypocritical to be "scared" of a broken CFL when you have 100 times more mercury in your mouth.

There's more mercury in tuna fish than one broken CFL. I'd be far more worried about that, Caleb.

Hmmm...Mark's comment about the alarmists being on the skeptical side is downright funny.

Oh I understand, we skeptics whine about socialism and the degradation of the world economy but I really don't see the true comparison to the AGWer side in which they often state implicitly that millions upon millions of people will die somehow, somewhere as seawater swallows up islands, Florida, and NYC et al. Beyond those drownings, we have pestilence, famine, and I believe locusts at some point (to paraphrase).

So no, I really don't see how the comment fits.

Onto the more important topic...

Don't really care what the heck is in the CFL bulbs, mercury, shmercury, the light is absolutely horrible. I have yet to find a CFL where I actually like the light it puts out. And, I have found that the CFL lasts no longer than a regular bulb contrary to the manuf. claims.

all this global wrming is just a scare mWE couldnt change the temperture if we tried and BUSH , A BIG OIL MAN SAYS NEW MILLIAGE STANDERNS BY THE YEAR 2020 ??? ISNT THAT STUPID ,THE ARABS AND THE OIL CO,S ARE ROBBING US BLIND ,AND HE IS WAITING TILL 2020 OUR COUNTRY SHOULD ALREADY HAD ASCESs TO ALL THE OIL WE WOULD EVEr NEED RIGHT HERE IN AND AROUND THE STATES

Mark,

How long do those new light bulbs last? I didn't say I planned on breaking them; I said they must be disposed of.

Where did you get the "fact" about there being more mercury in tuna than one of those light bulb? Sounds a bit suspicious to me.

I'll tell you what. I'll eat tuna, and you eat light bulbs. Let's see who is healthier.