Arctic ice cap melting

[Guthrie]

Link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Arctic ice cap is melting much faster than expected and is now about 30 years ahead of predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.S. ice expert said on Tuesday.

This means the ocean at the top of the world could be free or nearly free of summer ice by 2020, three decades sooner than the global panel's gloomiest forecast of 2050.

No ice on the Arctic Ocean during summer would be a major spur to global warming, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Center in Colorado.

"Right now ... the Arctic helps keep the Earth cool," Scambos said in a telephone interview. "Without that Arctic ice, or with much less of it, the Earth will warm much faster."

...

GWB deniers remind me of that comcast phone commercial --- a guy stands there in his boxers and his tiger stripe tattoos --

"I told you before, tattoos are permanent"

"but that was before on my old service"

"sorry, Roger, you tiger now"

"sorry? ... but I have Comcast Digital Voice"

[Wilber]

Not many people would argue that the globe is not warming, the debate is why, how much influence man is having and whether we can do anything meaningful to correct it. The debate over causes and consequences will go on for a long time because we are working with theories and projections so neither side will ultimately prove to be 100% correct.

[B. Max]

Link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Arctic ice cap is melting much faster than expected and is now about 30 years ahead of predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.S. ice expert said on Tuesday.

This means the ocean at the top of the world could be free or nearly free of summer ice by 2020, three decades sooner than the global panel's gloomiest forecast of 2050.

No ice on the Arctic Ocean during summer would be a major spur to global warming, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Center in Colorado.

"Right now ... the Arctic helps keep the Earth cool," Scambos said in a telephone interview. "Without that Arctic ice, or with much less of it, the Earth will warm much faster."

...

GWB deniers remind me of that comcast phone commercial --- a guy stands there in his boxers and his tiger stripe tattoos --

"I told you before, tattoos are permanent"

"but that was before on my old service"

"sorry, Roger, you tiger now"

"sorry? ... but I have Comcast Digital Voice"

Well that proves the computer models don't work. It does not prove man global warming. We do know that it's nothing unusual.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.ph...vived/#more-216

[M.Dancer]

I wonder if in 150 years from now geographers will consider how lucky we were that the warming of the arctic provided us with enough arable land to feeds the countless billions.......

Happy Sci Fi Wednesday!

[Sulaco]

I wonder if in 150 years from now geographers will consider how lucky we were that the warming of the arctic provided us with enough arable land to feeds the countless billions.......

Happy Sci Fi Wednesday!

There is a deeper truths in this.

1. The globe changes. it has changed before humans got here and ahs continued changing since we've been here. Seems to me there is a dream that we can arrest chage by ceasing certain behaviors. Ridiculous. Take us out of the equation and the planet will change.

2. Humans are highly adaptable. We are mobile and have invaded more environments then any other creature except for those that free ride with us. Catastrophe my ass.

[Wilber]

Regardless of the debate, it makes sense to reduce our consumption and emissions, not just from a global warming and polution point of view but an economic one as well. It just makes sense and done properly will make us more competitive, our country more livable and in small way, the rest of the world.

One has to keep two things in mind regarding Canada's position in the global scheme of things.

1. We produce 2% of the worlds CO2 emissions. We aren't going to save the world no matter what we do, so let's not shoot ourselves in the foot pretending we can..

2. Because of our climate and small population spread over a huge area, Canada will never be low on the list of per capita emitters.

[Guthrie]

Link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Arctic ice cap is melting much faster than expected and is now about 30 years ahead of predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.S. ice expert said on Tuesday.

This means the ocean at the top of the world could be free or nearly free of summer ice by 2020, three decades sooner than the global panel's gloomiest forecast of 2050.

No ice on the Arctic Ocean during summer would be a major spur to global warming, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Center in Colorado.

"Right now ... the Arctic helps keep the Earth cool," Scambos said in a telephone interview. "Without that Arctic ice, or with much less of it, the Earth will warm much faster."

...

GWB deniers remind me of that comcast phone commercial --- a guy stands there in his boxers and his tiger stripe tattoos --

"I told you before, tattoos are permanent"

"but that was before on my old service"

"sorry, Roger, you tiger now"

"sorry? ... but I have Comcast Digital Voice"

...It does not prove man global warming. ...

What did you intend to say?

I wonder if in 150 years from now geographers will consider how lucky we were that the warming of the arctic provided us with enough arable land to feeds the countless billions.......

Happy Sci Fi Wednesday!

No, as none of that can happen.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Link

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Arctic ice cap is melting much faster than expected and is now about 30 years ahead of predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.S. ice expert said on Tuesday.

This means the ocean at the top of the world could be free or nearly free of summer ice by 2020, three decades sooner than the global panel's gloomiest forecast of 2050.

No ice on the Arctic Ocean during summer would be a major spur to global warming, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Center in Colorado.

"Right now ... the Arctic helps keep the Earth cool," Scambos said in a telephone interview. "Without that Arctic ice, or with much less of it, the Earth will warm much faster."

...

GWB deniers remind me of that comcast phone commercial --- a guy stands there in his boxers and his tiger stripe tattoos --

"I told you before, tattoos are permanent"

"but that was before on my old service"

"sorry, Roger, you tiger now"

"sorry? ... but I have Comcast Digital Voice"

Here are umpteen examples of GROWING GLACIERS. Let me guess: this, too, is evidence of global warming?

[sharkman]

See, that's where the environmental alarmists got tricky. They realized that their whole house of cards would fall as soon as the planet begins its regularly scheduled cooling trend. So they thought they could fool everyone if they starting calling it climate change.

Funny thing that they think just changing the name solves this problem.

[Guthrie]

Here are umpteen examples of GROWING GL ACIERS. Let me guess: this, too, is evidence of global warming?

yeah, I checked your source, nothing in any of it refutes the fact of global warming. Your source merely misinterprets their own data.

in some cases, your source refers back and forth to itself or simply dead end at a blank page

and then there is the debunking we get from National Geographic

Some Glaciers Growing Due to Climate Change, Study Suggests

Brian Handwerk

for National Geographic News

September 11, 2006

Nat. Geo.

[JerrySeinfeld]

See, that's where the environmental alarmists got tricky. They realized that their whole house of cards would fall as soon as the planet begins its regularly scheduled cooling trend. So they thought they could fool everyone if they starting calling it climate change.

Funny thing that they think just changing the name solves this problem.

Or as Mark Steyn once said (paraphrased);

"First it was global cooling....then it was global warming....now it's "climate change" so the ecoloonie crowd doesn't have to change the bumper stickers every 30 years"

A side point:

I started a thread back in winter about how fricken cold it was in Vancouver this winter and related it to "climate change".

Predictably, the ecoloonie nuts jumped all over it - citing the VAST difference between 'weather' and 'climate'.

But look at Big Al Gore! He's trotting about the country pointing to weather and blaming climate!!! In fact, on the front of his movie cover there is a big photo of hurrican katrina, a random storm that tragically killed alot of people. But it was the STORM that killed them. It was the fact that New Orlean's is in a BELOW SEA LEVEL BOWL SURROUNDED BY A COMPLEX AND UNRELIABLE SYSTEM OF LEVEES AND DYKES.

The images were impressive, but again, to quote the alamists: this is WEATHER, not CLIMATE.

Recently I heard on the radio that Al was in Saskatchewan blaming recent flooding on CLIMATE CHANGE.

SO question: Isn't it CONVENIENT (pardon the expresssion) that weather can be used to argue climate change is our fault, but it can be used to oppose that theory?

This just reeks of NONSCIENCE.

[Guthrie]

See, that's where the environmental alarmists got tricky. They realized that their whole house of cards would fall as soon as the planet begins its regularly scheduled cooling trend. So they thought they could fool everyone if they starting calling it climate change.

Funny thing that they think just changing the name solves this problem.

Or as Mark Steyn once said (paraphrased);

"First it was global cooling....then it was global warming....now it's "climate change" so the ecoloonie crowd doesn't have to change the bumper stickers every 30 years"

...

Sorry, this is not just insulting, it is not true.

[JerrySeinfeld]

See, that's where the environmental alarmists got tricky. They realized that their whole house of cards would fall as soon as the planet begins its regularly scheduled cooling trend. So they thought they could fool everyone if they starting calling it climate change.

Funny thing that they think just changing the name solves this problem.

Or as Mark Steyn once said (paraphrased);

"First it was global cooling....then it was global warming....now it's "climate change" so the ecoloonie crowd doesn't have to change the bumper stickers every 30 years"

...

Sorry, this is not just insulting, it is not true.

Yes it is. Did you know the world's first Earth Day was convened to bring attention to the impending global cooling crisis?

[Guthrie]

See, that's where the environmental alarmists got tricky. They realized that their whole house of cards would fall as soon as the planet begins its regularly scheduled cooling trend. So they thought they could fool everyone if they starting calling it climate change.

Funny thing that they think just changing the name solves this problem.

Or as Mark Steyn once said (paraphrased);

"First it was global cooling....then it was global warming....now it's "climate change" so the ecoloonie crowd doesn't have to change the bumper stickers every 30 years"

...

Sorry, this is not just insulting, it is not true.

Yes it is. Did you know the world's first Earth Day was convened to bring attention to the impending global cooling crisis?

not just wrong, backwards

[Guthrie]

it takes a real severe case of cognitive dissonance to deny the truth even when it's in their face

ANTARPARA, Bangladesh -- Muhammad Ali, a wiry 65-year-old, has never driven a car, run an air conditioner or done much of anything that produces greenhouse gases. But on a warming planet, he is on the verge of becoming a climate refugee.

In the past 10 years the farmer has had to tear down and move his tin-and-bamboo house five times to escape the encroaching waters of the huge Jamuna River, swollen by severe monsoons that scientists believe are caused by global warming and greater glacier melt in the Himalayas.

...

Chi_Trib

taking responsible steps to reduce the effects of pollution should be beyond no one --

deny the truth, at the peril of your world

[noahbody]

it takes a real severe case of cognitive dissonance to deny the truth even when it's in their face

What's in your face are numerous posts trying to inform you that the debate isn't whether the planet is warming or not. So how does buddy whosit having to pack up his non-CO2 emitting camel and head to Moose Jaw add to the debate?

[stevoh]

I certainly don't deny that climate change has been a part of earths history since earth was first formed, that is fact.

The question is the degree to which human activities are effecting it.

One often quoted site to refute our influence is junkscience, a handy chart of CO2 levels and corresponding temperatures is provided:

http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif

While I am not going to spend the time to research this charts accuracy, one thing really stuck out to me. If you look at the chart, between 430 and 425 million years ago there was a big shift in temperature, about 10 degrees down. But this was over 5 million years! According to the current science, since 1920, our average temperatures have risen globally .6 degrees centegrade. At that rate, in 5 million years, the temperature on earth will be a toasty 30 000 degrees centigrade.

So, no, there is no dispute that the world goes through climate change periods. However, it is the current RATE OF CHANGE that is cause for alarm.

[stignasty]

Here are umpteen examples of GROWING GLACIERS. Let me guess: this, too, is evidence of global warming?

According to the National Snow and Ice Data center the overall trend in glaciers is that of rapid decline.

These results indicate that in most regions of the world, glaciers are shrinking in mass. From 1961 to 2003, the thickness of "small" glaciers decreased approximately 8 meters, or the equivalent of more than 6,000 cubic kilometers of water. The Global Glacier Mass Balance graph shows average volume change data each year from 1961 to 2003, and a plot of the cumulative change in volume, expressed in cubic kilometers of water, for this period.

http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html

[Guthrie]

it takes a real severe case of cognitive dissonance to deny the truth even when it's in their face

What's in your face are numerous posts trying to inform you that the debate isn't whether the planet is warming or not. So how does buddy whosit having to pack up his non-CO2 emitting camel and head to Moose Jaw add to the debate?

"...posts trying to inform you ..."

no, these posts don't inform but "misinform" -- the reason there is no debate on, "whether the planet is warming or not." is the fact - this debate has been resolved -

the only real question left is, what are we, as a civilization, going to do about it? Some of us want to make efforts to save the planet --- others want to put money and power before survival, as dumb a position as one might imagine.

[Drea]

no, these posts don't inform but "misinform" -- the reason there is no debate on, "whether the planet is warming or not." is the fact - this debate has been resolved -

the only real question left is, what are we, as a civilization, going to do about it? Some of us want to make efforts to save the planet --- others want to put money and power before survival, as dumb a position as one might imagine.

The debate is not whether or not the climate is changing on a world-wide scale, but WHO is responsible. Nature or humans?

We cannot "save" the planet from itself.

We could not have stopped the global warming 10,000 years ago either.

We need to learn to adapt. Mother Nature does not care that people live on the coasts -- they will have to adapt (move).

The places that now grow all of our food will no longer be able to do so -- we will have to adapt (grow it elsewhere).

Some species will die off -- well, where are all the Mastadons(sp) today? -- are humans responsible for their demise or is Mother Nature with her everchanging earth climate?

[Guthrie]

no, these posts don't inform but "misinform" -- the reason there is no debate on, "whether the planet is warming or not." is the fact - this debate has been resolved -

the only real question left is, what are we, as a civilization, going to do about it? Some of us want to make efforts to save the planet --- others want to put money and power before survival, as dumb a position as one might imagine.

The debate is not whether or not the climate is changing on a world-wide scale, but WHO is responsible. Nature or humans?

We cannot "save" the planet from itself.

We could not have stopped the global warming 10,000 years ago either.

We need to learn to adapt. Mother Nature does not care that people live on the coasts -- they will have to adapt (move).

The places that now grow all of our food will no longer be able to do so -- we will have to adapt (grow it elsewhere).

Some species will die off -- well, where are all the Mastadons(sp) today? -- are humans responsible for their demise or is Mother Nature with her everchanging earth climate?

I disagree. We could not, even a hundred years ago, have done anything about a meteoroid hurtling toward earth. Today men work to prepare to defend earth from that very thing.

Bottom line, whatever we can do to improve the environment, we should do.

This fatalistic attitude of, oh well we're screwed anyway might as well go out and poison the back yard ...

well, it's just so numbnuts lame as to be maddening

[noahbody]

This fatalistic attitude of, oh well we're screwed anyway might as well go out and poison the back yard ...

well, it's just so numbnuts lame as to be maddening

CO2 is a poison?

[Guthrie]

This fatalistic attitude of, oh well we're screwed anyway might as well go out and poison the back yard ...

well, it's just so numbnuts lame as to be maddening

CO2 is a poison?

well, not that I said so but yes, CO2 is a poison -

[buffycat]

CO2 is a poison?

well, not that I said so but yes, CO2 is a poison -

Without which we would have no plant life....

[Guthrie]

CO2 is a poison?

well, not that I said so but yes, CO2 is a poison -

Without which we would have no plant life....

The more correct phrasw would be, 'without the proper balance of, we would have no plant life' --- certainly too much CO2 will kill any advanced plant life more quickly than too little CO2