ice sheet losses in Greenland and Antarctica reach new highs

nutspecial said:
After reading this I was convinced in global warming:

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
Click to expand...


Then I was surprised to find it's actually from 1922. Makes me go 'hmmm?'- seems the world's been 'on the brink' for quite a while now.
Then also, how does it logically play into all this if there's evidence of major climate change in the distant past? Ice ages, pole shifts and flips. I would say a huge contributor to 'climate change' may have to do with the earth's axis, and magnetic fields.
I don't mean to disagree that things aren't on the brink.
I believe much of the evidence seems right- but take into account the earth has undergone pole oriented MAJOR change every dozen millenia though, then the last 5years, or 100 are a very small piece of the pie to use in the blame game. Not to mention there weren't many or any humans and suv's in the previous major earth changes. Magnetic changes are likely cyclical- take the sun for instance, it's change is a far shorter cycle, whereas the earth's appears to be a slow one.

Not an excuse not to be responsible- but there's plenty of info to question the official story- where who how and why.
Click to expand...

The world has not been on the brink since 1922. However the seas were warming and the ice was melting because of increased CO2 since coal burning started in the 1700s.

The reason there was ATMOSPHERIC COOLING during the 1960-1970s was because sulfur pollution was beginning to overwhelm the CO2 levels, however once we got clean air regulations there was much less sulfur. However China has restarted the sulfur coal burning craze and once again dimming haze pollution is masking the full effect of global warming. In many areas of the world this sunlight decrease is over 10% of the sunlight.

Great BBC docu on global dimming.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x22692o_bbc-horizon-2005-global-dimming_shortfilms

The reason there is global warming is because we started cutting down forests, producing methane from mass agriculture, and burning fossil fuels. This began en masse in the 1700s. Population went from half billion to 7 billion in 300 years. We cleared over 90% of the forests in the USA in 300 years. Sure some of it has regrown, but only 7% of it is over 100 yrs old. Over 90% of all large fish species are now gone from the ocean. Ancient man disocovered bows and spears, and killed the megafauna. When he discovered fire he cleared forests with it. We've been destroying for a long time.
 
wineboyrider said:
Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654
Click to expand...

The problem with this is they use 2010 and 2012 as the baseline. In reality, if you use 1980 as the baseline, then we were at 17 000 cubic kilometers of ice in 1980, in 2010-2012 it was about 4 000 cubic kilometers of ice, and in 2014 it was 7000 cubic kilometres.

So that headline is very deceiving. It grew 1/3 relative to 2010-2012, but relative to 1980 it lost 60% of its size. SO STOP PEDALING THE NONSENSE THAT ARCTIC SEA ICE IS GROWING PEOPLE, PLEASE.

"Relative to the average of the period between 2010 and 2012, the scientists found that there was a 33% increase in sea ice volume in 2013, while in 2014 there was still a quarter more sea ice than there was between 2010 and 2012."

Oh and I thought i'd make a joke image :D
This is how climate deniers see the Arctic sea ice rebounding.
jkaNgQy.png


Oh and I forgot to ask the previous poster, what is wrong with these trend lines? I'll make you a bet. 50$ says the sea ice reaches zero before 2025.
 
Gloop said:
Oh and I forgot to ask the previous poster, what is wrong with these trend lines? I'll make you a bet. 50$ says the sea ice reaches zero before 2025.
Click to expand...

Hehe, that was me. It's possible the summer sea ice hit zero by then, but I'm not sticking my neck out for predictions. :p

The only problem I had with the trend lines is they are nothing more than someone playing with the what amounts to the various options for the "best fit" tool in Excel between arbitrary data points in a time series. They didn't even use the same start points for each best fit line, the modded the linear fit line to start at 1997 so it wouldn't point far into the future... :roll: It's about as scientific as a door nail - I like the real PIOMAS charts, at least they are produced by scientists, and without the hokey trends on them:

AePya8q.png

Original Copy Link

(Sorry the image is bigger than usual for the board) edit: Fixed to 800px wide scaled for the board
 
To be technically correct, the linear line would be incorrect whether placed near the beginning, middle, or end, cause the data is visually clearly not linear.

You should shrink your images on imgur so people can see the full trendline. I guess PIOMAS also stretches their image on the X-axis so that the decline looks less alarming.
 
Good idea I went ahead and scaled it, and linked to the original.

The PIOMAS data fits well in the two standard deviations trend that PIOMAS produces, I would say that the claim "clearly not linear" does not fit with the data they've collected so far. Now there are some theories that there may be some acceleration that could happen, but the PIOMAS produced September minimums trend at -3.2 [1000km^3/Decade] would take almost two more decades to get to an ice free summer. Not really a useful tool to predict future ice volume though, so that's why they develop more complete models and don't use trend lines for future projection.
 
Peter Wadhams made this prediction back in 2012.

FEnnEUz.png


Even if he ends up being wrong, if it happens in the next 5 years, he's still close enough.
 
I don't get it. Is that supposed to be a joke about Peter Wadhams extrapolating when sea ice might go?
Isn't that his job, as head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group, Cambridge University?
 
to me, the only thing hard to evaluate is the rate of sea level rise. i have read about documented changes in the past where sea level rose 23 meters over a 70-100 year span so i expect the forcing will be similar in the current time frame.

so the discussions of 8-10' rise in new york or miami are just trivial. all of our farms and timber will be underwater 120 miles from the gulf of mexico. everything south of the Lasalle arch and the Sabine uplift in louisiana will be underwater.

all of the refining capacity and much of the oil production along the gulf coast of the US will be underwater. that may finally put an end to our rate of increase of CO2 emissions.
 
There's a race on for the various teams to have the largest supercomputer and most complete climate model, the largest most current & accurate dataset, so as to accurately predict the various trends, including Arctic sea ice, whether by extent or volume. My money is on the Massachusetts Green High Performance Computing Center, the consortium of the University of Massachusetts system, MIT, Harvard, Boston University, and Northeastern. As you can imagine, modelling even a single weather pattern, a cyclone for instance, is a difficult undertaking. Then magnify that to the entire climate system.

A Climate-Modeling Strategy That Won’t Hurt the Climate
“High-energy physicists and astronomers have long appreciated that international cooperation is crucial for realizing the infrastructure they need to do cutting-edge science,” he wrote. “It is time to recognize that climate prediction is ‘big science’ of a similar league.”
Click to expand...
The MGHPCC is "green" because of its strategy to use all renewable energy, and to use the Connecticut river to cool its massive arrays. The Holyoke site was picked for that, as well as the fact that it sits on top of the Northeast telecommunications hub and could yield terabyte data transfer rates. A true marvel.

On a similar note, NASA’s climate supercomputer is getting a huge upgrade
NCCS is also more than doubling Discover’s storage, to a total of 33 petabytes.
Click to expand...
Nothing really beats the NASA/NOAA team when it comes to climate and weather modelling.

But go ahead, if you're in the betting pool, get your favourite chart, a ruler and pencil, and draw your best line. Nonetheless an interesting game to guess when the Arctic will be ice-free. I'll give you an important clue.

Atmospheric heat content is of little consequence to the ice melt. More than 90% of global warming is absorbed by the oceans. The melting is from the edges and underneath the ice shelf. And the scientific community is still gathering the data and doing the analysis which might yield an accurate model of sea-ice loss. But yea, from what those researchers know right now, the most probable time-line puts it between 2015 and 2030. Any guess has a 1/15th chance of being right. I still pay closest attention to http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/ for the latest news, nice pictures and prognostications. Because once the ice is gone, its game-over for humanity.
s3-1024.jpg

Yellow highlights areas of most recent active melting.
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=11837
 
Thanks gloop, I'm aware of that general concensus. 'climate deniers' is a counterproductive label imo, I wouldn't be caught dead using such labels while purporting to have it all figured out.

Global dimming is very real, and so is change. I don't like to see a big disconnect between the climate discussion/concensus and history/ the rest of science.

I doubt things are nearly as simple as they appear, and truly believe there is an incredible amount of spin and control when it comes to 'the story for the public'. Hint- multinational corporations pretty much run everything.

I watch the skies alot, and think these peoples' evidence and opinions should be also taken into account.
Elephant in the room.

'what in the world are they spraying'
[youtube]xFQ2_0QNiks[/youtube]

These people and video is highly rational. Decide for yourself.

Is GEOENGINEERING happening, and to what degree, and for what purpose?
Would there be some relevance to 'global warming', positive or negative?
 
Not sure why I bother attempting to address the nut-specials and whack-jobs of the blogsphere, but..
Conspiracies Fuel Climate Change Denial and Belief in Chemtrails
David Suzuki said:
I recently wrote about geoengineering as a strategy to deal with climate change and carbon dioxide emissions. That drew comments from people who confuse this scientific process with the unscientific theory of “chemtrails”. Some also claimed the column supported geoengineering, which it didn’t.

The reaction got me wondering why some people believe in phenomena rejected by science, like chemtrails, but deny real problems demonstrated by massive amounts of scientific evidence, like climate change...

... I don’t have space to get into the absurdities of belief in a plot that would require worldwide collusion between governments, scientists and airline company executives and pilots to amass and spray unimaginable amounts of chemicals from altitudes of 10,000 metres or more. I’m a scientist, so I look at credible science – and there is none for the existence of chemtrails. They’re condensation trails, formed when hot, humid air from jet exhaust mixes with colder low-vapour-pressure air. This, of course, comes with its own environmental problems.

But what interests me is the connection between climate change denial and belief in chemtrails...

...The problem is that science denial is, in the case of chemtrails, a wacky distraction and, in the case of climate change denial, a barrier to addressing an urgent, critical problem. Science is rarely 100 per cent certain, but it’s the best tool we have for coming to terms with our actions and their consequences, and for finding solutions to problems. The science is clear: human-caused climate change is the most pressing threat to humanity, and we must work to resolve it. We don’t have time for debunked conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
There is a lot of high-quality science based articles posted in this thread. Please read them.
 
The quote is understandable. But applicable? I use the scentific names, not that bogus chemtrail label. Whether it's happening yet or not- the concerned people in the docu believe it is, and have evidence to support it. (besides just observing the sky). Also, I don't believe I'm denying any climate change. 'deniers' seems like a catch-all category for you. And 'Whackjob' is not nice bro. We're adults here aren't we? Acting childish does nothing to validate your beliefs. In fact, the opposite- don't you guys see that?

The fact remains that geoengineering is very real. There are patents and scientists involved. It is NOT A SECRET

Solar radiation management http://www.ask.com/web?q=Solar+radiation+management&qsrc=1&o=0&l=dir&qo=serpSearchTopBox

Stratospheric aerosols http://www.ask.com/web?q=stratospheric+aerosols&qsrc=19&qo=spellCheck&o=0&l=dir

=Persistant contrails? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2z2ZzXFeKo

Sorry if that upsets your paradigm. Not my intention.
 
OMG you seriously just brought chemtrails into this?! I sincerely suggest you spend less time staring at the sun and read a freaking book instead.

nutspecial said:
I doubt things are nearly as simple as they appear, and truly believe there is an incredible amount of spin and control when it comes to 'the story for the public'. Hint- multinational corporations pretty much run everything.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's got to be it. AGW is a conspiracy created by the oil industry.

This is what I was saying before. Nutspecial's paranoid ramblings and truther soundbites are only an annoyance when we're merely discussing the moon landing or the thousands of deaths from the 9/11 WTC attack, but this is serious issue and his input is actively harmful. It's like a situation with a medical emergency where the doctors need to decide what best to do and a random lunatic is running around the room, screaming and waving his c**k at everyone.
 
Lol, you are too funny punxor!

Hey, I'll butt out- I'm surprised and sorry you feel my thoughts/concerns are harmful to your discussion, or thought process, or paradigm, or whatever.

Can't have rational discussion if the other parties are condescending and derogatory anyway 8)
But don't forget- Solar Radiation Management is a real thing, and you heard it here, YAY! :D
 
It's not harmful to my discussion, or particularly in this thread, it's harmful to discussion of the topic in society in general. Public perception is that only around 50% of scientists agree on AGW i.e. it's even-sided and still very much open for debate. This is because deniers spread FUD and misinformation, which is lapped up by the media (since "it's not our fault!" is exactly what people want to hear). The media, in a faulty claim to be "balanced" devote equal attention and air time to the deniers as to the actual experts, strengthening the impression of a 50:50 split.

The available evidence strongly suggests mankind needs to take action to reduce and mitigate AGW. The nature of that action is what ought to be being discussed, not spending time considering the input of the "citizen scientist" in the corner interjecting wild theories, speculation and appeals to "hear both sides".
 
I totally hear ya brother. Good to hear you explain it- I absolutely understand.
I will always try to look at both sides, because anytime there are contrasting group points of view, it's likely they could each be improved to reach a conclusion. The more evenly divided the groups, the more they should consider introspection and seek to come together. Imo, the media is being used as a tool for division.

Classes,
Colors,
Sexes,
Age,
Politics.

The only answer I see is seek a way to agree, and that can't be sticking to our sides vehemently. Our civil war is an example of where that can lead. And even if it never escalates to war, it handicaps the population and culture- 'a house divided'. Meanwhile, the sht's hitting the fan.

The available evidence strongly suggests mankind needs to take action to reduce and mitigate AGW. The nature of that action is what ought to be being discussed, not spending time considering the input of the "citizen scientist" in the corner interjecting wild theories, speculation and appeals to "hear both sides".
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree with discussion. On the rest, call me an eternal optimist, but I believe in sifting through as much info as possible. I don't think the best place to be is among the polarized groups. I think there's always more truth to be had.

As far as the subject of the icecaps melting and climate change, if you don't find the points about:
-SRM (solar radiation management)
-Pole shift
-Past cataclysms/ change
-'owned' media helping cause division
helpful, that's fine- just trying to bring some tasty morsels I find interesting.

If you want to talk about what to do, I can suggest: evaluate the systems/culture. Then each of us should do our part to minimalize our own waste/polution. It goes much deeper than suv's vs hybrids imo, but that could be a step in the right direction.
More localized living in tune with the earth, needing to rely on less infrastructure (power,food,oil) Is even better!!
I guess it's possible that the giant corporate infrastructure might change, but even if not, we at least did our part for those that may come after us.
 
With regards to the soon-to-be-published James Hansen study, article reported in Slate: Earth’s Most Famous Climate Scientist Issues Bombshell Sea Level Warning and elsewhere:
  • It has not been published yet
  • comes via a nontraditional publishing decision by its authors... published in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, an open-access “discussion” journal, and will not have formal peer review prior to its appearance online later this week
  • was necessary to make the work public as soon as possible before global negotiators meet in Paris later this year
  • so will be peer-reviewed in the open before the public eye
What will be curious in retrospect latter this year before the COP21 talks in Paris, is exactly what kind of consensus will materialize around this provocation. Scientists, especially those with influence with the IPCC, have historically been so conservative, they have erred significantly on the side of too much caution. Hence their projections have ALWAYS been wrong, not predicating the pace and acceleration of actual changes, as they occur. Reality has always born out the very worst IPCC scenario, report to report. So I'll be curious to see if they remain ensconced, or will take the moment to agree with Hansen, et.al., that the various worst scenarios of the IPCC fifth assessment report are the more likely.
 
so amazing that these ignoranti invade this thread saying 'bro' and how 'differing opinions must have some sorta compromise in the middle'.

why do they even come here? just to trash the reality they do not understand?
 
I love ya nutspecial but you're bounding from leap to leap so fast it's hard to keep up!
nutspecial said:
The fact remains that geoengineering is very real. There are patents and scientists involved. It is NOT A SECRET
Click to expand...
No one is making a claim that geoengineering isn't "real." You are making a giant leap from the study of geoengineeiring to chemtrails, which is what people take issue with.
nutspecial said:
Global dimming is very real
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. It's taken into account when studies are conducted on the climate. It's part of the aerosol and particulate forcing mechanisms in climate models.
nutspecial said:
I doubt things are nearly as simple as they appear, and truly believe there is an incredible amount of spin and control when it comes to 'the story for the public'.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is why we're pushing for efforts to be made to go back to primary source material, and think critically about any conclusions or narratives that are portrayed in the media
nutspecial said:
'what in the world are they spraying'
These people and video is highly rational. Decide for yourself.
Click to expand...
If by 'these people' you mean the producers of that video, then no, on that topic they are most certainly not rational. They've draw conclusions and attempt to support it with hearsay. There was no evidence presented in the documentary to support the claims they've made. To think otherwise is to misunderstand what 'evidence' is.
nutspecial said:
As far as the subject of the icecaps melting and climate change, if you don't find the points about:
-SRM (solar radiation management)
-Pole shift
-Past cataclysms/ change
-'owned' media helping cause division
helpful, that's fine- just trying to bring some tasty morsels I find interesting.
Click to expand...
You haven't made any points about these topics that would be helpful to anyone! I sincerely think you think you have, but I'm sorry - you are not using a shred of critical thinking to come to any of the conclusions or speculation that you have drawn here.

My (personal) purpose isn't to try and convince anyone of anything about anthropogenic global warming, as important a topic as it is to understand. I'd like to see people elevate their thinking. If you learn to critically evaluate claims - search for solid evidence to support or refute those claims; identify bias, motive, intentions and perspectives; find fallacies (errors in reasoning) in lines of thought, etc. The process is sometimes called deconstruction when applied to social sciences and literary text. Here is a page of tools you can apply in this pursuit. If you can read, understand, and apply the methods that I've linked to, as well as the pages on the scientific method and consensus linked earlier, you will be much more well armed to change your own mind on important topics, or engage meaningfully with others in fact-based discussions.

Most of our scholastic enterprises in western countries are still based around some form of Prussian teaching method, which is one reason independent and critical thought is so weak among our general population, it's simply not fostered in any meaningful way in many traditional environments. The Prussian model develops wonderful skilled labor indoctrinated with a strong sense of national identity, however. Critical thought is a skill that is honed over a lifetime, and in my opinion, the best use of an early learners time of study and practice. One thing this method is good at is general literacy, so at least the skills to be able to read the necessary material to learn more are at hand.

Please, don't think I'm trying to be "mean" by posting this, I'd just love to see you become more knowledgeable and better versed in this type of discourse. :)

dnmun said:
why do they even come here? just to trash the reality they do not understand?
Click to expand...
I think applying that level of agency or motive is optimistic in most cases. :wink:
 
I never said chemtrails- I said: (you know, you quoted it) SRM
The topic BY DEFINITION should be considered along with climate change/ warming. Simply trying to make sure you fella's were aware of it. If you don't see any applicability, who am I to judge?

I was impressed with the evidence in the documentary. A valid hypothesis imo. A good docu-

If you want to talk about what to do, I can suggest: evaluate the systems/culture. Then each of us should do our part to minimalize our own waste/polution. It goes much deeper than suv's vs hybrids imo, but that could be a step in the right direction.
More localized living in tune with the earth, needing to rely on less infrastructure (power,food,oil) Is even better!!
I guess it's possible that the giant corporate infrastructure might change, but even if not, we at least did our part for those that may come after us.
Click to expand...

If you take away anything, maybe this ^^ can be an acceptable 'contribution'-

*tips hat, walks off into the sunset, trips over shoelace, falls on a sunbathing woman's magnanimous breasts (.) (.) :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top