Exactly...the entire atmospheric sciences field is being stifled by the climate change zealots who attack anyone who even suggests that are questions yet to be answered or...even worse...hints at the heresy that the entire basis of the global warming model is...wrong. There are powerful political forces at play in the global warming debate...and they are driven by the wealthy oil have-not nations of the world. The actual science is just something to be used and manipulated to achieve their ends...enforced rationing...and the political power that accrues.
The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased from 310 ppm to 384 ppm in 50 years. There has been a lot of handwaving about how carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a 'greenhouse' gas that is absorbing heat and preventing it from radiating into space but nothing credible quantifies the effect of that change in concentration. To list just a couple of the problems with the theory:
1) There is already an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere to seemingly provide all of the infrared absorption possible by carbon dioxide. Adding additional carbon dioxide does not increase the absorption effect since there is already an excess beyond what is needed.
2) Uncondensed water vapor has a 'greenhouse' effect 4x to 5x times greater than CO2. Similarly, though, there is already an excess of water vapor in the atmosphere so increasing water vapor does not increase the absorption.
3) Absorption of infrared radiation by any of the gases in the atmosphere causes the absorbing molecule to heat whereupon it almost instantly collides with another molecule contributing to an increase in temperature of the gas mixture, members of which then re-emit radiation which then continues on into space. A (slightly) warmer atmosphere would radiately slightly more heat to space leading to a balanced flow of heat rather than a buildup of heat at ground level.
Satellite imagery from as recent as 1979 shows enormously more ice than we see today.
No, it doesn't.
Agreed that that's what TFA says, but how could they possibly KNOW that the problem only started a few weeks ago. They were unaware of the problem until they begain receiving emails from people disputing the numbers for something that was obviously wrong. The emailers recognized a problem based on independent knowledge of something that was in error. What if there was no one with that kind of independent knowledge last August? What if the sensor has been failing/drift ing intermittently for the last 3 years? What is troubling is that so many people such as yourself are willing to unquestionably accept such an obviously major problem as 'no big deal.' They were stating conclusions based on that sensor data to the effect that a drastic melting of ice was underway and urging dramatic rescue action. "The Earth is screaming!" was the way that one of the impartial NSIDC scientists put it in media reports.