Ice-free Arctic summers possible by 2100

[Mibrew]

Scientists: 'We will have to live with the outcome'

Thursday, September 29, 2005; Posted: 2:57 a.m. EDT (06:57 GMT)

NEW YORK, (Reuters) -- The Arctic ice shelf has melted for the fourth straight year to its smallest area in a century, driven by rising temperatures that appear linked to a buildup of greenhouse gases, U.S. scientists said Wednesday.

Scientists at NASA and the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which have monitored the ice via satellites since 1978, say the total Arctic ice in 2005 will cover the smallest area since they started measuring.

It is the least amount of Arctic ice in at least a century, according to both the satellite data and shipping data going back many more years, according to a report from the groups.

As of September 21, the Arctic sea ice area had dropped to 2.05 million square miles (5.31 million square km), the report said.

From 1978 to 2000, the sea ice area averaged 2.70 million square miles (7 million square km), the report said. It noted the melting trend had shrunk Inuit hunting grounds and endangered polar bears, seals and other wildlife.

The report warns that if melting rates continue, the summertime Arctic may be completely ice-free before the end of the century, echoing last year's findings from the Arctic Council, an eight-nation report by 250 experts.

The melting trend increasingly appeared to be caused by a buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the scientists said.

"It's increasingly difficult to argue against the notion that at least part of what we are seeing in the Arctic, in terms of sea ice, in terms of warming temperatures ... is due to the greenhouse effect," Mark Serreze, a research scientist at NSIDC, said in an interview.

"We've put a hit on the system and we are in the midst of a grand global experiment," Serreze said about the impact of global warming and ice melting on humans and animals. "We will have to live with the outcome."

The NSIDC, part of the University of Colorado at Boulder, helps NASA analyze satellite data.

Most scientists believe greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide that is released mainly from cars and utility smokestacks, cause global warming by trapping solar heat in the atmosphere. Many believe global warming can lead to catastrophic consequences, including raising sea levels and strengthening weather events such as hurricanes.

One Arctic variation, known as Arctic Oscillation, an atmospheric circulation pattern that can push sea ice out of the area, had become less of an influence in the region since the mid-1990s, the report said.

Inuit hunters threatened by the melting of Arctic ice plan to file a petition in December accusing the United States of violating their human rights by fueling global warming. The Bush administration has opted out of the Kyoto Treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Inuit number about 155,000 people in Canada, Alaska, Greenland and Russia.

Scientists say the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the globe because water or bare earth, once uncovered, soaks up more heat than ice and snow. That process means melting can spur even warmer temperatures and more melting

[Patagoniamaniac]

Thats pretty scary.. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/sad3.gif

[MadScot]

I don't think it's anywhere near that far off. This is like a snowball rolling downhill. The melting isn't going to continue at it's present rate it will do so exponentially. Katrina and Rita are nothing compared to what's right around the corner. When the western ice shelf (size of texas) falls the resulting tsunami will more than likely destroy all coastal life around and in the pacific ocean. Some simulations put the resulting wave at over a mile in height. California may once again have an inland sea. I've always been amazed in all the biosphere simulations I've done how little you have to tip the scale before the runaway effect takes place. At this point I don't think there is much that can be done. If we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow it may still be too late and we know that's not happening anyway.

"Perchance he for whom this bell tolls may be so ill, as that he
knows not it tolls for him; and perchance I may think myself so
much better than I am, as that they who are about me, and see my
state, may have caused it to toll for me, and I know not that." -John Donne

[Mibrew]

Waves rise as mountains
And rise to the heavens,
And with horror drops glances
Into instantly dug abysses
A disturbing force like passion,
does not know of a centre point,
Now to the sky, now into the precipice throws
A boat without an oar or rudder.

[MtnBreeze]

There are many effects from melting....one being the dilution of salt in the ocean causing the currents that effect weather to slow down. I read an article where it predicted the global warming could throw us rapidly into an Ice age if the gulf stream stops (which it appears will happen within 20 years) I know this seems contradictory to global warming since the warming is melting everything but the effect is suppose to create havoc with weather...thus rapid freezing.
I'll try to find a link to this info.

[MtnBreeze]

Here is one link some of you might find interesting reading.
http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics/climatechange_wef.html

[Coldwolf]

Waves rise as mountains
And rise to the heavens,
Brew...Tolstoy?

[MadScot]

According to satellite photos you could have sailed all the way to the north pole this year.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14924575/

[Yosemite Joy]

This is surprising because? The only thing that is really surprising is that they say 2100, and not 2010.

[Kahlua Kid]

Polar Bears are drowning and could potentially go extint also. They are losing their habitat due to the ice melt.

[MtnBreeze]

What I totally don't understand is how humans think they are somehow immune to the effects of all this. We bounce merrily along pulluting and thinking the things we share this earth with are dispensible. We think it doesn't matter that we greedily use up the resources and pollute Mother Earth. We go after the almighty dollar at the expense of everything else and somehow refuse to take responsibilty for our actions. One thing is certain...perhaps it is already to late but FOR SURE the consequences are irreversible if we don't wake up fast. The snowball won't quit rolling unless we do something NOW. And I agree that it isn't 100 years from now. It is emminent. What is sad is that we have the technology to turn it around right now but it isn't as profitable????????????? What the heck good is wealth if we are all dead!!! We each can do things to help change it. See An Inconvenient Truth and watch it with an open mind(non political). It will be out on dvd in November.
Learn what you can do to help. Visit websites and Learn as much as you can. Here are just a few.
http://www.nwf.org/globalwarming/
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/
http://www.greenfacts.org/climate-change/global-warming...-warming-effects.htm (http://www.greenfacts.org/climate-change/global-warming-effects/global-warming-effects.htm)
http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?issueID=109&articleID=1361

[Patagoniamaniac]

glad I wont be around....

[Kahlua Kid]

Originally posted by MtnBreeze:
What I totally don't understand is how humans think they are somehow immune to the effects of all this. We bounce merrily along pulluting and thinking the things we share this earth with are dispensible. We think it doesn't matter that we greedily use up the resources and pollute Mother Earth. We go after the almighty dollar at the expense of everything else and somehow refuse to take responsibilty for our actions. One thing is certain...perhaps it is already to late but FOR SURE the consequences are irreversible if we don't wake up fast. The snowball won't quit rolling unless we do something NOW. And I agree that it isn't 100 years from now. It is emminent. What is sad is that we have the technology to turn it around right now but it isn't as profitable????????????? What the heck good is wealth if we are all dead!!! We each can do things to help change it. See An Inconvenient Truth and watch it with an open mind(non political). It will be out on dvd in November.
Learn what you can do to help. Visit websites and Learn as much as you can. Here are just a few.
http://www.nwf.org/globalwarming/
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/
http://www.greenfacts.org/climate-change/global-warming...-warming-effects.htm (http://www.greenfacts.org/climate-change/global-warming-effects/global-warming-effects.htm)
http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?issueID=109&articleID=1361

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/applause.gif

Extremely well said - I totally agree with you!

[nosmatt]

It seems no matter the clout that top researchers/scientists in their respective fields have, the left wing just will not recognize them. a very good article, i urge all to read, even the ones brainwashed. (ok, not just left wing, Mcain is just as guilty!)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334682,00.html

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm



facts are facts, global temps have dropped.
stop the madness i say to the candidates! tell the american people the truth!


ok, off my soap box :), now it's time to get to work.


good day all.

[Twolf]

I can't speak to the "cold fluctuation" or the "100 scientists," but since it was from Foxnews I looked up John Lott. He is a statistical economist with a history of contoversal claims. He is a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank that funds "research" for pro corporate causes such as anti-global warming. He is famous for his book "More Guns, Less Crime." He believes more citizens & especially teachers should carry guns to deter crime. Yet we have 200,000 guns in this country & more crime than any other industrial country. His other claims are that hiring minority police officers causes more murders, smoking in public should not be regulated, Dioxin in not harmful to humans, the FAA should not oversee airlines and that we should stop worrying about the enviroment & pollution & just adapt.
Of course there is uncertainty in global weather/climate prediction but we have to go with the best judgement of the large majority scientists. There will always be disagreements and all good imput is needed. We just have to be careful what data we give credance to. Besides it isn't just GW we have to worry about; we are polluting our air & water and using up huge amounts of dwindeling oil that we pay more & more for.
Here is whole page dedicated to John Lott:
http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=56
Twolf

[David_V]

.....facts are facts, global temps have dropped.
stop the madness i say to the candidates! tell the american people the truth!
Faux "news" is not the place to go if you want the truth. Data from one year does not cancel out a trend that has been going on for over 100 years. The temperature rise has always been a jagged line. There have always been little dips here and there, but the overall trend is still on the rise.

The fact is that global temps, on average, are rising.

For simple scientific explanations on how the major anti-global warming complaints are wrong, please see:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

[nosmatt]

Faux "news" is not the place to go if you want the truth.
ahh c'mon, just because it is one of the only major news agencies that does not lean left, it does not mean they report garbage either. You need to take news from any source with a grain of salt, especially the major papers.


Data from one year does not cancel out a trend that has been going on for over 100 years. The temperature rise has always been a jagged line.
absolutly! Do not take my orignal post as face value, it was supposed to incite conversation (not flaming). I agree the trend is the trend, but who is to say the trend has not slowed, or is on a reversal for a couple years, only to return (or not...) much like the housing market :)


There have always been little dips here and there, but the overall trend is still on the rise.
This is where i have issue, there is too much evidence in past history (pre-human) of lower, and higher ice shelf levels in the arctic and antarctic. ocean core sample show a much colder globe that we have no, qand a much hotter one, very natural occurance climate change...


The fact is that global temps, on average, are rising.
for now.......


For simple scientific explanations on how the major anti-global warming complaints are wrong, please see:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/

bah, a liberal site, no better than the conservative site link i posted ;)

how much Co2 is released from amajor volcanic eruption? how many greenhouse gasses are emmited every year from various volcanoes, and compare to how many are released by man?

ocean levels in the past have been far, far higher than have been seen in recorded history, and pre-humans were not rolling around in gas guzzlers. must have been mammoth farts?

[Yosemite Joy]

What does it matter? The rapture is coming and we will be free of this polluted earth to live in peace and harmony with harps and angels.. *sigh*

You know, it doesn't matter what Al Gore says. I didn't read the article. And it doesn't matter what scientists say on either side of the argument. We are going to keep on using the oil and polluting and no one can stop humans from this. Look at DDT and the terrible chemicals we have born into this world since we started playing with plastics. Terrible, terrible, terrible. And you know what? Humans did not care to think what price we would pay. And now we have plastics that pollute the oceans in the most horrible ways (killing off coral reefs, etc) in minute forms, but gathering together and forming more larger un-biodegradable pollutants that will out last us (all humans).

You can say that there is no global warming, okay. But really, try to read a few books on the subject and leave fox news to it's blathering self.

[mary oleary]

ahh c'mon, just because it is one of the only major news agencies that does not lean left, it does not mean they report garbage either. You need to take news from any source with a grain of salt, especially the major papers.


absolutly! Do not take my orignal post as face value, it was supposed to incite conversation (not flaming). I agree the trend is the trend, but who is to say the trend has not slowed, or is on a reversal for a couple years, only to return (or not...) much like the housing market :)


This is where i have issue, there is too much evidence in past history (pre-human) of lower, and higher ice shelf levels in the arctic and antarctic. ocean core sample show a much colder globe that we have no, qand a much hotter one, very natural occurance climate change...

for now.......



bah, a liberal site, no better than the conservative site link i posted ;)

how much Co2 is released from amajor volcanic eruption? how many greenhouse gasses are emmited every year from various volcanoes, and compare to how many are released by man?

ocean levels in the past have been far, far higher than have been seen in recorded history, and pre-humans were not rolling around in gas guzzlers. must have been mammoth farts?

you make some good points- It does seem like facts are shrouded with agendas and politics...Which makes it hard to trust anyof the information either side of the argument....

Pollution, can't be good, so we should curb it. No need to rush towards the end of the world...

(But maybe these are exactly the conditions we need to make our next adaptive phase in our evolutionary process!!maybe we need a castotrophic event to instigate our metamorphasis ....sigh.... :D)

[David_V]

ahh c'mon, just because it is one of the only major news agencies that does not lean left, it does not mean they report garbage either. You need to take news from any source with a grain of salt, especially the major papers.
I do not give a rats patoot which way it leans. Faux "news" is incapable of telling the truth. It's not a major source of news, it's a major source of BS.

absolutly! Do not take my orignal post as face value, it was supposed to incite conversation (not flaming). I agree the trend is the trend, but who is to say the trend has not slowed, or is on a reversal for a couple years, only to return (or not...) much like the housing market :)
That the Earth is allegedly cooling is one of the bogus arguments use by the anti-global warming crowd. They'll latch on to any tiny idea no matter how wrong it is and cling to it as if it were sacrosanct.

This is where i have issue, there is too much evidence in past history (pre-human) of lower, and higher ice shelf levels in the arctic and antarctic. ocean core sample show a much colder globe that we have no, qand a much hotter one, very natural occurance climate change...
No one has ever claimed that the climate has not changed in the past. If one were to look at the charts they would see that this change is different. The temps, CO2 levels, other greenhouse gases and other indicators have risen faster in the past 100 years than they have risen in all of the history we can figure out. Much of that CO2 carries an anthropogenic fingerprint.

...carbon atom has several different isotopes (eg - different number of neutrons). Carbon 12 has 6 neutrons, carbon 13 has 7 neutrons. Plants have a lower C13/C12 ratio than in the atmosphere. If rising atmospheric CO2 comes fossil fuels, the C13/C12 should be falling. Indeed this is what is occurring (Ghosh 2003) and the trend correlates with the trend in global emissions.Source. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm)


bah, a liberal site, no better than the conservative site link i posted
Just because it is backed by science does not mean it is Liberal.

how much Co2 is released from amajor volcanic eruption?
About 1/100 what humans put out in one year. 0.3 Gigatonnes of CO2 per year for volcanoes and 26.4Gt per year for humans.

ocean levels in the past have been far, far higher than have been seen in recorded history, and pre-humans were not rolling around in gas guzzlers. must have been mammoth farts?
So? :nixweiss:

[mary oleary]

No one has ever claimed that the climate has not changed in the past. If one were to look at the charts they would see that this change is different. The temps, CO2 levels, other greenhouse gases and other indicators have risen faster in the past 100 years than they have risen in all of the history we can figure out.

The problem is that these "recorded indicators" are too young, and knowledge about unrecorded history is too limited, for such dogmantic assertions to be considered above dispute.

we don't know what we don't know.

So to suggest that the Global warming proponents are scientific and the scientists that disagree are stupid right wingers, is well... kind of closed minded.

[David_V]

The problem is that these "recorded indicators" are too young, and knowledge about unrecorded history is too limited, for such dogmantic assertions to be considered above dispute.
The "recorded indicators" go back thousands of years. We have indications of what the world temps were like for billions of years. What else do you want? Since when is the truth a "dogmatic assertion"?

we don't know what we don't know.
Nice cliche.

So to suggest that the Global warming proponents are scientific and the scientists that disagree are stupid right wingers, is well... kind of closed minded.
Actually, the opposite is true. There are no Global Warming "proponents" there are only facts. The facts show beyond a doubt that the climate is changing and it is changing because of the rapid input of large amounts of CO2 that had been locked up in fossil fuels. Those are the scientific facts, not opinions.

[mary oleary]

David V - you crack me up!

There is a record of the earth temperatures and CO2 emissions that go back thousands of years? NOT rolleyes:

No one has ever claimed that the climate has not changed in the past. If one were to look at the charts they would see that this change is different. The temps, CO2 levels, other greenhouse gases and other indicators have risen faster in the past 100 years than they have risen in all of the history

Just how far back does that chart go? Pretty lofty claim considering all of History goes way back... This change is different than what? the first Ice age, the cooling of the earth, who even knows what other pre historical climatic events took place ( get it- Pre History?)

especially if you think the earth is billions or millions years old...what does 100 years tell us about trends?

[David_V]

David V - you crack me up!

There is a record of the earth temperatures and CO2 emissions that go back thousands of years? NOT rolleyes:
About 6 thousand years for ice cores. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Paleoatmospheric_sampling)
10 thousand with tree rings. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology)

Just how far back does that chart go?
Which chart? There are many.

Pretty lofty claim considering all of History goes way back... This change is different than what? the first Ice age, the cooling of the earth, who even knows what other pre historical climatic events took place ( get it- Pre History?)
See the above links. Then read up a bit on paleoclimatology. (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/end.html)

especially if you think the earth is billions or millions years old...what does 100 years tell us about trends?
It tells us the trend is warming. It also tells us the trend is different than in past warming episodes.

[mary oleary]

You are more dogmatic than your sources...
Shallow cores, or the upper parts of cores in high-accumulation areas, can be dated exactly by counting individual layers, each representing a year. These layers may be visible, related to the nature of the ice; or they may be chemical, related to differential transport in different seasons; or they may be isotopic, reflecting the annual temperature signal (for example, snow from colder periods has less of the heavier isotopes of H and O). Deeper into the core the layers thin out due to ice flow and eventually individual years cannot be distinguished. It may be possible to identify events such as nuclear bomb atmospheric testing's radioisotope layers in the upper levels, and ash layers corresponding to known volcanic eruptions. Volcanic eruptions may be detected by visible ash layers, acidic chemistry, or electrical resistance change. Some composition changes are detected by high-resolution scans of electrical resistance. Lower down the ages are reconstructed by modeling accumulation rate variations and ice flow.

Dating is a difficult task. Five different dating methods have been used for Vostok cores, with differences such as 300 years at 100 m depth, 600yr at 200 m, 7000yr at 400 m, 5000yr at 800 m, 6000yr at 1600 m, and 5000yr at 1934 m.

Different dating methods makes comparison and interpretation difficult. Matching peaks by visual examination of Moulton and Vostok ice cores suggests a time difference of about 10,000 years but proper interpretation requires knowing the reasons for the differences.

[mary oleary]

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Antarctic_Snow_Inaccurate_Temperature_Archive.html
Antarctic Snow Inaccurate Temperature Archive

Dutch researcher Michiel Helsen emphasises the complexity of isotope variations in the hydrological cycle, even in a relatively stable area such as Antarctica. He therefore advises fellow climatologists to be careful when quantifying climate signals over a period of several years on the basis of ice-core data.

According to Dutch researcher Michiel Helsen, annual and seasonal temperature fluctuations are not accurately recorded in the composition of the snow of Antarctica. His research into the isotopic composition of the Antarctic snow has exposed the complexity of climate reconstructions.
Polar ice caps contain valuable information about the earth's climate. Helsen investigated the extent to which meteorological data are stored in the composition of snow in order to improve the interpretation of deep ice cores from the Antarctic ice cap. He demonstrated that annual temperature variations in Antarctica could not be accurately reconstructed from ice core investigations. The conditions during snowfall are not representative enough for the average weather over an entire year.

It's all in the "interpretation of data"...there is disagreement With-in the scientific community. And to just write off some scientists as Junk because they dispute a popular view is closed minded.

I'm not saying you're wrong, or they are wrong,(like I have a clue!) but I am am acknowledging that there are two ( or more) scientific opinions regarding the "interpretation" of the present data with the current technology.

We don't know what we don't know- is more than just a cliche- it's an attitude of openess to learning.

[David_V]

You are more dogmatic than your sources...
No, I just stick to the science, not the popular conspiracy theories or junk science.

[David_V]

It's all in the "interpretation of data"...there is disagreement With-in the scientific community.....
No, it's following the data, not interpreting it. And, no, there is no disagreement within the scientific community. Just like the anti-evolutionists the anti-GW people cherry pick a few scientists, or even non scientists, on the fringe and claim there is some big controversy when the vast majority of scientists have reached a consensus.

We don't know what we don't know- is more than just a cliche- it's an attitude of openess to learning.
Actually, that would be a hindrance to the pursuit of further knowledge.

[nosmatt]

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/04/weather-channel-founder-sue-al-gore-expose-global-warming-fraud


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html



Hell, i did not even know he had a financial fish to fry.


I still have to read all of this one, too long for work.

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf

[David_V]

....Hell, i did not even know he had a financial fish to fry.
He doesn't. You will not find the truth at either of those sites, especially Faux "news". "Fair and balanced" is the ONE thing they are not. See; Out Foxed. (http://www.outfoxed.org/)

I still have to read all of this one, too long for work.
Like I said earlier, junk science and cherry picking. I'll stick with the real science.

[David_V]

For a good site that lists the anti-GW arguments and then explains in as simple as possible language how the argument is wrong see: Skeptical Science. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) They have no "fish to fry" or no money to make, or anything like that. Just honest science.

[nosmatt]

not just yet David.

I am currently reading Mr. Coleman's excellent article.

However, i am quite sure that is junk science as well, since it does not bolster your opinion, or those of others trying to scare people into submission, and garner more government grants into their work. Boy, we all like being employed.

I want to see the graphs used to show the increase in global temps, not the amount of co2 in our atmosphere, just kinda curious. also, have a look at that last article i posted, he uses many, many sources for his information, well respected, and many times, government funded.

[nosmatt]

For a good site that lists the anti-GW arguments and then explains in as simple as possible language how the argument is wrong see: Skeptical Science. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/) They have no "fish to fry" or no money to make, or anything like that. Just honest science.

that says it all.

a conspiracy theory, anti-GW website.


LMAO


facts-is-facts

[David_V]

not just yet David.

I am currently reading Mr. Coleman's excellent article.
is it "excellent" because it's telling you want you want to hear?

However, i am quite sure that is junk science as well, since it does not bolster your opinion,.....
It's not my opinion, but the scientific consensus.

I want to see the graphs used to show the increase in global temps, not the amount of co2 in our atmosphere, just kinda curious. also, have a look at that last article i posted, he uses many, many sources for his information, well respected, and many times, government funded.
Why would you want to see the graphs? You've already made up your mind. :shrug: As for "government funding," that does not guarantee it has not been censored by the bush administration. They've been proven to be anti-science (http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/sciencewars/). It is bad enough for someone to write a book about it (http://www.amazon.com/Undermining-Science-Suppression-Distortion-Administration/dp/0520247027/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205452919&sr=8-8).

Here are some charts for you to look at. (http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/Temp_data.htm#fig4)

[David_V]

...facts-is-facts
True, but the anti-gw people don't have facts, they have a conspiracy. :cool:

[nosmatt]

True, but the anti-gw people don't have facts, they have a conspiracy. :cool:

really?

or have you been brainwashed?


http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

that article exposes many studies lack of the big picture (among many other things). they show charts of rising temps, however they fail to show normal sun output fluctuations in the same charts David. when you superimpose those charts, it becomes quite clear, temps do rise, and they rise, and fall in relation to the solar energy received by the sun.

Be open minded enough to read the article i posted above. 400 scientists, many of which have government funding to lose by not staying on the bandwagon. I guess that is all right wing propaganda as well?

I hope this lawsuit goes through, even though i hate the waste in $$$ it will cause, we just might get the real story, and stop the "fleecing of america" (a left wing reporters famous signiture line) :)

left wing, right wing, who gives a damn. i want real facts, and 150 years of global temp info on a 4.5 billion year old planet, 20k of which were inhabited by modern beings is not a fair and accurate cross section of available data.

I would like to see a non-partisan (hell, even bi-partisan!) site with facts (beyond 150 years) of global temp information, and actual theory and models from meteorologists and the like with no political and/or financial stake.


anyway, i seriously doubt either of us are going to change the others mind.


We can sit here and post link, after link of anti-left-wing, or right wing websites untill our fingers are numb! there are plenty of both.

[David_V]

really?

or have you been brainwashed?
No, I go by the science, not politics.

The Sun has been ruled out as a cause. Here's some more charts for you. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm)

[mary oleary]

:earmuffs: If information doesn't agree with my opinion or the opinion of those I agree with then it must NOT be Facts...and must be propoganda!

David V you crack me up:rofl:

Good try Nos.

[mary oleary]

However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."

That's right folks- the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended... in 1975...um hm...:yes:

This led them to conclude that it must be caused by another scource... um hm..and without any presuppositions to influence thier interpretations....well you know the rest... the struggle between the liars ( GW opponenets) and the Scientists ( GW proponents) began... um hm...

Big Money has NOTHING to do with this...none...forget carbon credits and trade ageements...don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain...

[mary oleary]

http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrsp-2007-2&page=articlesu5.html

Radiative forcing of climate change

Taking a value of the climate sensitivity parameter of 0.6 K (Wm–2)–1 suggests that a global of 0.6 K (Wm–2)–1 suggests that a global average surface warming of less than 0.1 K since 1750 could be ascribed to the Sun. However, the IPCC gives the assignation “very low” to the LOSU associated with solar radiative forcing, thereby acknowledging that there may be factors as yet unknown, or not fully understood, which may act to amplify (or even diminish) its effects.

LOSU = Level of Scientific Understanding

We don't know what we don't know

If David says this is a right wing site I might just pee my pants! :rofl:

[David_V]

:earmuffs: If information doesn't agree with my opinion or the opinion of those I agree with then it must NOT be Facts...and must be propoganda!

David V you crack me up:rofl:
What ever floats your boat. You deal with the opinions, I'll deal with the facts.

[David_V]

That's right folks- the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended... in 1975...
In your opinion. The science and the facts say otherwise. Solar activity will continue to influence temps on the Earth until the Sun becomes a red giant and destroys the Earth.

[David_V]

If David says this is a right wing site I might just pee my pants! :rofl:
Get back to me when you're willing to have an adult conversation.

[mary oleary]

In your opinion. The science and the facts say otherwise. Solar activity will continue to influence temps on the Earth until the Sun becomes a red giant and destroys the Earth.

Not my opinion David-the info I posted was taken from the site YOU posted in the quote below!

:D
The Sun has been ruled out as a cause. Here's some more charts for you.

Were you confused?

[MadScot]

As Dylan sang don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. For the first time in any of our lifetimes you could sail a boat to the north pole in summer. 90% of the worlds glaciers have melted. End of story.

For decades we've heard some people claim there was no global warming. Now they say ok it's been getting warmer but now it's getting cooler nothing to worry about.

If one were paying attention to what 99% of the scientists were saying you would realize the long term effect of global warming will be another ice age. One would also realize that more snowfall will occur along with heavier rains. The warmer water with lower salt levels due to reduction of the mixing effects of the ocean conveyor and the addition of fresh water will have a much higher evaporation rate.

Let me ask a few simple questions.


If you do believe that this current cycle of global warming has nothing to do with us, and is a natural cycle does that mean we should just sit by and watch the cycle take us into another devastating ice age?

If you are given a choice of two methods of producing power one has a tiny effect on the environment and the other releases toxic elements which kill us which would rather have?

If you can put people to work building new green energy plants isn't that better than paying them unemployment?

Granted the solutions are not all simple but the questions are.

[nosmatt]

As Dylan sang don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. For the first time in any of our lifetimes you could sail a boat to the north pole in summer. 90% of the worlds glaciers have melted. End of story.
remember that quote...



If one were paying attention to what 99% of the scientists were saying you would realize the long term effect of global warming will be another ice age. One would also realize that more snowfall will occur along with heavier rains. The warmer water with lower salt levels due to reduction of the mixing effects of the ocean conveyor and the addition of fresh water will have a much higher evaporation rate.

what posistion do you hold??? they are slightly contradictory


Let me ask a few simple questions.


If you do believe that this current cycle of global warming has nothing to do with us, and is a natural cycle does that mean we should just sit by and watch the cycle take us into another devastating ice age?

there have been numerous in the past, there will be many in the future, should we mold our world into what WE want, or should we learn to modify our lives and survive what nature throws at us??

the last ice age, not long ago!
why did the vikings leave "greenland" how "green" is is today.


If you are given a choice of two methods of producing power one has a tiny effect on the environment and the other releases toxic elements which kill us which would rather have?
could ya tell me which has a tiny effect on the enviroment? (i am all for photo voltaics (although not all that green in manufacture!) and wind for that matter.) Unfortunately none are capable of keeping up with our demand.


If you can put people to work building new green energy plants isn't that better than paying them unemployment?
of course!
but, to what end?
think unemployment is bad now?


"Just this week the Environmental Protection Agency issued its economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill that is being considered by the Senate. The EPA projects that if the bill is enacted the size of our economy as measured by its gross domestic product would shrink by as much as $2.9 trillion by the year 2050.

That’s a 6.9 percent smaller economy than we otherwise might have if no action were taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For an idea of what that might mean, consider our current economic crisis."

all the more alarming when you consider:
"For more perspective, consider that during 1929 and 1930, the first two years of the Great Depression, GDP declined by 8.6 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively"


if there are no tax dollars left in the coffers for development, and construction of these plants do to crazy unemployment rates, ever increasing government, ever increasing social programs, ask yourself, where is the money going to come from?


for more on that article, http://junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080320.html


why does everyone turn a blind eye to the facts, but not to those who are going to profit from this madness? we do not even question any more, just assume we are being given the truth.

[nosmatt]

about that quote "For the first time in any of our lifetimes you could sail a boat to the north pole in summer. 90% of the worlds glaciers have melted. End of story"

not sure why glaciers would hinder your north pole sail, but hey. ;)

Im am sure David will call him a liar, fraud, or whatever else.... but I feel he has forgotten more than any of us will ever learn about global climatology..

15 Sep 07 - "Antarctica - a vast territory whose sea-ice growth in winter effectively doubles its size to envelop an area three times that of Canada...

"Not until 1998, with the advent of new technologies and improved scientific understanding, did human knowledge "allow the question of the global relevance of Antarctica to be explored in detail for the first time," stated David Bromwich of the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University. A decade ago, Dr. Bromwich was embarking on a major research project for the National Science Foundation to begin to understand this frozen continent, which is the primary heat sink in the global climate system, and "plays a central role in global climate variability and change."

"As Dr. Bromwich reported earlier this year at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco, "It's hard to see a global-warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

"Dr. Bromwich found that the global models that the IPCC relies on are at odds with his own findings. Antarctica's temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as global climate models predicted.

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment." "... until the global models get the polar regions right, they won't get the global climate right either."

David Bromwich is head of the Polar Meteorology Group of the Byrd Polar Research Center and Professor in the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the Department of Geography of Ohio State University. He is president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology, the chair of the Polar DAAC Advisory Group, a member of the Arctic Climate System Study Working Group on Reanalysis, and a past member of the National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Geophysical and Environmental Data. The author or co-author of numerous papers, he received his PhD in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin, Madison, in 1979."


and about global flooding from a warmer earth...
"19 May 2005 - According to a new study published in the online edition of Science, the East Antarctic Ice Sheet gained about 45 billion tons of ice between 1992 and 2003. The ice sheets are several kilometers thick in places, and contain about 90% of the world's ice."

90% in antarctica. 90%..... so, even if the arctic turns into a sauna, your looking at less than 10% of the worlds ice melting, and since antarctic ice sheets are still growing, that number is likely to be alot less than 10% by the time it happens.


nobody cares though, it does not scare anyone to say everything is fine.

doom and gloom sell papers, news shows, stupid documentaries, and get mad amounts of funding from the governments of the world for "reasearch".


ohh well, ill get off my soapbox and finally get some work done today.

[David_V]

As Dylan sang don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. For the first time in any of our lifetimes you could sail a boat to the north pole in summer. 90% of the worlds glaciers have melted. End of story.
Denial is easier and it gives the deniers a sense of power.

For decades we've heard some people claim there was no global warming. Now they say ok it's been getting warmer but now it's getting cooler nothing to worry about.
Some areas will be colder and others warmer. It's the AVERAGE global temp that's going up. That's a fact. I was at a lecture a few days ago that showed the start and end of the spring melt. It has moved back two weeks since they started keeping records. In many places around the country the tree line has moved up the mountain almost half a mile in the past 50 years.

If one were paying attention to what 99% of the scientists were saying you would realize the long term effect of global warming will be another ice age. One would also realize that more snowfall will occur along with heavier rains. The warmer water with lower salt levels due to reduction of the mixing effects of the ocean conveyor and the addition of fresh water will have a much higher evaporation rate.
That thermohaline circulation is our temperature regulator. It moves a tremendous amount of heat around the globe. When that thing gets disrupted, watch out!

Let me ask a few simple questions.

If you do believe that this current cycle of global warming has nothing to do with us, and is a natural cycle does that mean we should just sit by and watch the cycle take us into another devastating ice age?

If you are given a choice of two methods of producing power one has a tiny effect on the environment and the other releases toxic elements which kill us which would rather have?

If you can put people to work building new green energy plants isn't that better than paying them unemployment?

Granted the solutions are not all simple but the questions are.
Those solutions will have to dealt with pretty soon. There probably won't be enough oil, at the current rate of consumption, to last much past mid century. Luckily, I'll be dead by then. I feel bad for my grandkids.

[nosmatt]

apparently it is MUCH worse that I gave credit in the last thread.
Our wanton use of fossil fuels has spread folks, now we are messing up places we never even considered.


http://www.livescience.com/space/searchforlife/seti_mars_wind_070426.html

an exceprt:

In early April of this year, a young Carl Sagan Center Principal Investigator named Lori Fenton, together with her colleagues at NASA Ames Research Center and the USGS in Flagstaff Arizona, published an article in the journal Nature revealing the phenomenon of the rise in the martian global temperature over the past 20 years. The rise, less that 2° for both surface and air temperature, is still significant from a geologic perspective.

Our Co2 emmisions have spread a few million miles, and are now warming our favorite red planet.


most alarming statement:
Across the past two decades, the model showed the surface temperature of Mars has increased by about 0.65 degrees Celsius (1.17 degrees Fahrenheit).

"That magnitude of change is comparable to what we've estimated for global warming on Earth over the last 100 years," said study participant Paul Geissler of the USGS.




wow!

what does this mean ???

well, obviously I was joking about carbon dioxide levels on mars. However it does show us a planet much farther from the sun (avg 141 million miles from the sun for mars) can have a global warming event. Funny, earth is about 92 million miles, and has a dense atmosphere to trap this heat, where mars does not have much of an atmosphere.

Of course the article listed the hypothisis for this global warming even on mars to be from higher than normal winds uncovering dark portion of martial soil, thus heating up instead of reflecting solar energy back into space...blah, blah, blah....

excellent read if you have the time.


Kinda coincidental dont you think??? Earth's temp rising over the last 20 years more significantly than ever, and mars.....

[traveller01]

Thanks for sharing the link. informative.

[David_V]

....excellent read if you have the time....
Except that the Sun has been ruled out as the main cause of the recent warming trend by the majority of climatologists.

See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

[Red Mule]

The pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions, because industrial greenhouse gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected and higher temperatures are triggering self-reinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems, scientists said Saturday.
"We are basically looking now at a future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations,"...

See:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/14/AR2009021401757.html

for the rest of the story. The economy may soon be the least of our problems if we don't start paying a lot more attention. This is something tax breaks won't fix!

[MtnBreeze]

Oh Gee..An Inconvenent Truth? This has been known and denied for years unfortunately...it's sad :(

[Red Mule]

As the new study shows, it's getting worse even faster that Gore's original estimates. He may have underestimated the problem.

[only1alphafemale]

and this "denial" is what allows people to remain in their *comfort zones* and not take action ~ Yes it is sad. :no:

[jakobscalpel]

As the new study shows, it's getting worse even faster that Gore's original estimates. He may have underestimated the problem.

The new study also shows the feedback mechanism described in the article was not properly accounted for when the model was coded. How many other feedback mechanisms are still not implemented or poorly understood? How many other complex processes are handled with statistical parametrization for time savings on the processors? We all know the answer...many many many.

Global warming is real. It may even be bad. But climate scientists who live by the computer model should be criticized on the computer model. You can't come out and say the models are mostly infallible in order to push through legislation, then turn around and say the models are reasonable guesses and are mainly a tool used to isolate processes we don't yet understand. It should be one or the other, not both.

Instead, they are currently using results that "confirm" an agenda as dogma and using results that are misleading or inaccurate as pure research. It was the same when I worked in the field.

[Red Mule]

My field of engineering was quite different, but we used computer modeling as well. It allows forecasting that cannot be done in any other way. Getting the details as correct as possible is also important. In this case, I think small details might be the difference in coastal cities being underwater in our lifetimes or not. But, I do not think precise accuracy is always possible and as more facts become better understood, the model parameters must be adjusted.

And, yes, we all tend to point out what supports our positions much more quickly than the opposite. How could we expect the climate scientists to be any different? But, I think the trend of the data is clear. It's bad and getting worse. How bad and how fast will become more clear as time goes on.

[only1alphafemale]

My field of engineering was quite different, but we used computer modeling as well. It allows forecasting that cannot be done in any other way. Getting the details as correct as possible is also important. In this case, I think small details might be the difference in coastal cities being underwater in our lifetimes or not. But, I do not think precise accuracy is always possible and as more facts become better understood, the model parameters must be adjusted.

And, yes, we all tend to point out what supports our positions much more quickly than the opposite. How could we expect the climate scientists to be any different? But, I think the trend of the data is clear. It's bad and getting worse. How bad and how fast will become more clear as time goes on.

Yes it is bad and getting worse, and this is noted by what is visually seen, and felt around the world~ In climate changes, receding glaciers/diminishing ice packs, recorded history etc.~ Which arent being stated/observed simply via computer programs and their proposed accuracy or lack of it.

The when? will it happen predictions can be off, but the changes are undeniable.

[BooBooBear]

As the new study shows, it's getting worse even faster that Gore's original estimates. He may have underestimated the problem.

He may have "underestimated" the problem but at least he's not in "denial" of the problem!

[Iris]

I am merging Red Mule's original thread (today) with others regarding Global Warming. This topic has a rich and controversial history...