backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by amosbatto.. on Aug 26 at 2:26 PM


  (Source: sciencedaily.com)
Sea ice extent in the Arctic fell to 483,000 square km (186,000 square miles) on August 13, a new record

The Arctic Ocean is feeling hot, hot, hot, says new report released by the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. 
 
According to the report, sea ice extent in the Arctic dropped to a record low on August 13, and will continue dropping to new record lows by the end of the month. 
 
Sea ice extent, which measures the amount of sea ice remaining in the ocean, fell to 483,000 square km (186,000 square miles) on August 13. This was a dip from the previous record low on the same date back in 2007. 
 
But that's not the end of it. The Arctic sea ice is expected to continue melting through mid to late September, but more record lows have been predicted for the end of this month.
 
"A new daily record would be likely by the end of August," said Ted Scambos, lead scientist at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. "Chances are it will cross the previous record while we are still in ice retreat."
 
The news of a new record hasn't surprised many among the environmental community. This may be because the Arctic neared record lows last year, according to climate physics Professor Seymour Laxon from University College London. It almost seemed inevitable that this would happen at some point. "Rapid" melting occurred in June of this year as well with 100,000 square km melting daily.
 
However, Laxon worries that this rate of melting will adjust the prediction for an ice-free Arctic in summer. Previous reports estimated that the Arctic will have an ice-free summer in 2100 based on melting at that time, but when the 2007 low hit, this estimate was brought to the 2030-2040 range. Scientists are now concerned that this year's lows will bring that date even closer, which is problematic because the melting of sea ice means warming of the oceans. Sea ice keeps the Earth's temperature controlled.  
 
Global warming always seems to be a hot topic (pun intended). A recent controversial report released by James Hansen at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed that global warming has caused hotter summers since 1980, but many question the merit of his opinions based on his position on climate change. 
 

Source: BBC News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

On the bright side
By Ringold on 8/21/2012 7:17:34 PM , Rating: 4
Having less ice will open it up as shipping lanes (China and Russia have already experimented a bit), significantly reducing the distance, and thus cost, of a large portion of global trade. Current shipping lanes go through a lot of lawless, hostile areas, whereas nobody would call Canada, Russia, Norway, Sweden or the US lawless and hostile. Fewer days at sea + lower insurance premiums = win.

Not saying its all good news, its bad news if it means Greenland's ice sheet could rapidly melt too, but at least its not all bad.




RE: On the bright side
By vignyan on 8/21/2012 7:50:58 PM , Rating: 3
well, if the Transatlantic current stops regulating the temperature due to lowered salinity, it could result in larger seas and lands of ice - aka trigger the next ice age.
I am not a climatologist, but that theory was derived from the earlier ice-age's example on Natgeo. So, might have some bearing to it.


RE: On the bright side
By mdogs444 on 8/21/2012 8:40:26 PM , Rating: 5
I don't know much about this stuff, but sure seems like you just recited the plot to The Day After Tomorrow.


RE: On the bright side
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2012 10:12:23 PM , Rating: 5
It's going to hit two days before the day after tomorrow!


RE: On the bright side
By MrBungle123 on 8/22/2012 10:56:24 AM , Rating: 4
That's today!


RE: On the bright side
By elderwilson on 8/22/2012 9:45:11 AM , Rating: 2
Where do you think the idea for the movie came from?


RE: On the bright side
By FITCamaro on 8/22/2012 5:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
Even environmentalists have called the story implausible.


RE: On the bright side
By elderwilson on 8/23/2012 8:59:08 AM , Rating: 3
I never said that the scenario is plausible; I simply stated that the theory was the inspiration for the movie not the other way around.


RE: On the bright side
By tng on 8/23/2012 10:23:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I never said that the scenario is plausible...
No you didn't, but there were allot of environmentalists who used it as a stick to scare people.

Also would like to say that the authors of the book that the movie was based on, believe that it could happen just as the movie portrayed it. I have heard them on a radio interview saying that it could. I think the book was called The Coming Global Superstorm.


RE: On the bright side
By Chernobyl68 on 8/22/2012 7:01:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's because that's what the plot uses as its justification. The problem is that instead of two days or so, the change would occur over a hundred years or so. But in 2100 we could be seeing a new ice age, if the Atlantic conveyor shuts down.


RE: On the bright side
By ArcliteHawaii on 8/22/2012 6:31:58 AM , Rating: 1
This is one big worry. Melting ice from Greenland (of which there are millions of tons) has a very strong likelihood of pushing the North Atlantic Current south, preventing the warm waters from entering the area around Canada, Europe, and Greenland. The lack of warm water chills Europe and Canada, throwing both into an ice age.

Conversely, global warming also increases the desertification of America's breadbasket through higher temps, lower rainfall, and drought. The end result is that you can't grow food in the USA due to the destruction of the breadbasket, and you can't grow food in Canada due to the colder temps. The result is the mother of all food shortages. Feel like paying $20 for a loaf of bread? In a few years this could be reality.


RE: On the bright side
By Dr of crap on 8/22/2012 8:14:09 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry, haven't you all been paying attention, Greenlands ice has all melted a week or so ago. Yea, it was reported by NASA that it almost all melted in 3 days was it.

Remarkably fast melting and it's from some satellite pics about 4 days apart.

Not sure why coastal flooding on a grand scale hasn't happened yet - as predicted would happen!


RE: On the bright side
By KoS on 8/22/2012 9:02:20 AM , Rating: 3
Well, there is problem with "forecasts/predictions". I live in a part of the American breadbasket.

We had one of the driest/warmest Junes and Julys on record. Which the AGW proponents used as a sign that their predictions were correct.

Yet, August has turned out to be one of the wettest/coolest on record. Funny enough, those AGW proponents have been quiet lately. Hmmm current circumstances don't fit!

We have had climatologists(Fed, state, univeristy) tells us we should expect warm and dry until Oct. Well, August has thrown a wrinkle into that predicition.

They don't know for sure what will happen. Enjoy the ride and do the best to prepare and adapt. Which is nothing new, we have dealt with it in the past and we will surely deal with it in the future.


RE: On the bright side
By RufusM on 8/22/12, Rating: 0
RE: On the bright side
By RufusM on 8/22/2012 10:25:24 AM , Rating: 2
I'll add that no climatologist worth their salt is going to try to predict the weather or climate. They can only say: Given conditions a, b and c we expect that the climate will be about x around y date. They cannot predict with any accuracy whether they will be true at that date or not.

Predicting weather and climate are fraught with problems since there are so many unknowns past a future date. The systems are so complex that unforeseen events, cause and effect, etc. are not likely to be predicted.


RE: On the bright side
By KoS on 8/22/2012 10:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
You are correct sir!

I was just bringing up that people(AGW types) are pointing to this summer and saying it fits into the overall predicitions of man-made global warming. Only a part of the summer has fit the story, while the remainder of the summer has refuted that idea.

Also I agree with your statement on climatologists. Too many thou have opened their mouth, to the public.

I find it funny we have problems accurately predicting weather days, weeks or months ahead of time. Yet we are suppose to believe people can predict the climate years, decades from now.


RE: On the bright side
By RufusM on 8/22/2012 11:09:39 AM , Rating: 2
You bet! It seems every time a warm spell comes along, it's all about global warming. When a cold spell comes along no one says anything.

It's the mindset of paying attention to what reinforces a person's beliefs and not challenging them.


RE: On the bright side
By MozeeToby on 8/22/2012 12:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
That's because it's statistics, not any one day. Statistically, the number, size, and severity of 'extreme weather events' (drought, heatwave, etc) was very, very high this year. It is statistically unlikely that those events would have occurred if the global climate was unchanged from 20 years ago. But again, that's statistically unlikely. Until the statistics pile up for a few more years there is still some question to the numbers but a cold, wet august isn't going to be enough to erase the outlier from the pool.


RE: On the bright side
By KoS on 8/22/2012 1:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
I find it interesting you use the 20 year mark.

The lack of rain and high heat the first two months of summer. This is the first time since 88 have we had such a hot and dry period in those two months. Just over 20 years ago.

Ahh yes the summer of 88, the same summer Hansen's little dog and pony show before Congress.

Our August, is the wettest and coolest since 93.

So called extremee weather events have happened before and will happen again and again and again....


RE: On the bright side
By Manch on 8/22/2012 5:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't something happen in the summer of 69 too?


RE: On the bright side
By KoS on 8/23/2012 8:20:46 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, yes it did! But then again....how would you know? I don't know you! :)


RE: On the bright side
By DFSolley on 8/22/2012 11:58:16 AM , Rating: 3
When I first moved to Florida, we were told that the lack of hurricanes was a sign of AGW. Then we had a year with 4 major hurricanes... and that was a sure sign of AGW.


RE: On the bright side
By tng on 8/22/2012 12:28:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
...the desertification of America's breadbasket through higher temps, lower rainfall, and drought.
All things that have been happening for at least a thousand years or more anyhow, even if we are accelerating it, it is going to happen.

There used to be lakes in allot of the inland desert areas of So Cal 150 years ago that are now just desert, some of them used to have paddle wheel ships to cross them in the gold rush days. This happened long before cars and huge pollution. Why do you think Area 51 was chosen? It had a huge dry lake bed that was ideal for landing planes.


RE: On the bright side
By MadMan007 on 8/21/2012 10:22:10 PM , Rating: 3
That will be perfect for receiving goods at the seaport of Ottawa.


RE: On the bright side
By muhahaaha on 8/21/2012 10:59:58 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, why must this be seen as a negative? Perhaps this will be beneficial. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to reduce our impact on the environment, but maybe this isn't such a horrible development.


RE: On the bright side
By automedonte on 8/22/12, Rating: -1
RE: On the bright side
By ArcliteHawaii on 8/22/2012 6:49:03 AM , Rating: 2
It's difficult to predict the precise negative effects of climate change. The north channel may open up, or it may freeze over once the melting freshwater of Greenland prevents temperature distribution. Certainly some things are fairly predictable like the desertification of the American breadbasket. Also, increased and northerly spread of tropical diseases throughout the USA such as malaria, west nile, and many others creating a series of epidemics in a country not prepared to handle such diseases.

This precludes utter disasters such as all the ice in Greenland melting, a process which is accelerating (http://www.meltfactor.org/blog/?p=476). Such an event would cause the ocean to rise 20 feet across the globe. The effects of this would be catastrophic. The land millions of people currently live on would be flooded. Every single port in the world would be inundated and have to be rebuilt. Countless freshwater lenses would be infiltrated with salt water rendering them undrinkable and unusable. It would cost tens of trillions of dollars to recover from such a problem.

The truth is that humans have never lived in a climate of 370 ppm CO2. We just aren't adapted for that. It's extremely risky to raise the temp, and foolish to think everything will be okay.


RE: On the bright side
By Dr of crap on 8/22/2012 8:16:04 AM , Rating: 1
UH, sorry it was reported by NASA that almost all of Greenlands ice had melted, and flooding HASN'T happened yet!


RE: On the bright side
By kattanna on 8/22/2012 1:39:06 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
UH, sorry it was reported by NASA that almost all of Greenlands ice had melted, and flooding HASN'T happened yet!


oh my.. please pass what your smoking as it has to be pretty good


RE: On the bright side
By JediJeb on 8/22/2012 2:18:46 PM , Rating: 4
That study reported here was discussed pretty well and what NASA was showing was not a total loss of ice, even though their graphic made it look that way. They showed in white the areas that were not melting faster and in red the areas that had, which made the before and after look like all the white "ice" had disappeared.

What they said was a majority of the ice sheet had experienced melting, which can mean simply there was water standing on the top of it, not that it had melted.


RE: On the bright side
By PaFromFL on 8/22/2012 8:22:13 AM , Rating: 1
This might also open up Greenland to farming. Global warming presents more opportunities than problems. It's global cooling that is the big disaster.


RE: On the bright side
By automedonte on 8/22/2012 3:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, why not?
Let's open Greenland to farming and let's close every other place all over the world.
It's a win-win situation


RE: On the bright side
By PaFromFL on 8/22/2012 4:49:58 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I forgot to mention Siberia, Alaska, and northern Canada. Evolution came up with legs to access greener pastures. Human history is full of mass migrations. To be fair, it is probably hard for couch potatoes to appreciate the opportunities that climate change (or any change) presents.


RE: On the bright side
By automedonte on 8/23/2012 6:54:16 AM , Rating: 2
So, your idea is to take a frozen country, removing the ice, and open it up to farming, like if global warming were a programmable room thermostat in which you can set the temperature you want and keep it all the time you want.


RE: On the bright side
By Samus on 8/22/2012 4:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
Ringold, thats all very interesting, I never thought about that. Too bad we can't build up some ice on the south pole to stabilize things, you know, where nobody gives a hoot.


Crickets
By dj LiTh on 8/21/12, Rating: 0
RE: Crickets
By lennylim on 8/21/2012 8:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
I'd much rather hear crickets than the usual flame wars that erupt in the discussions following such posts. Very few people will change their beliefs based on this. I have great faith in human obstinacy.


RE: Crickets
By TSS on 8/21/12, Rating: -1
RE: Crickets
By amanojaku on 8/21/2012 10:18:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Instead you get the above nonsensical arguements and then they demand more money.
Man, you just described lawyers, politicians, and CEOs to a T. And ex wives.


RE: Crickets
By Mint on 8/21/2012 10:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
How ironic that you made this post in reply to someone pointing out obstinacy of DT members on global warming topics.

Would you deny that reflective glass aids in controlling the temperature of a room or a car? If I scratch off that film, would it not become less effective? WTF is so objectionable about that simple, non-quantitative statement about sea ice?

You're painting a pretty broad brush with that moronic statement about GW proponents. It's getting harder and harder to deny the existence of AGW as evidence keeps piling up and cooling predictions by skeptics keep getting busted. That's not where the shortcoming of the science is. The real problem is that few if any people have honestly looked at policy in a rational manner, because most of that is being done by politicians and celebrities instead of scientists.

I did some calculations, and paying a 5c/kWh premium for carbon free energy (aside from nuclear, we still can't do that when everything is taken into account) means we'd have to spend $1T to reduce the global temperatures by 0.02 degrees C. It would be an outright humanitarian disaster to spend global goodwill that way instead of on infrastructure, medicine, etc. in the third world, where you'd save 100x as many lives.


RE: Crickets
By Ringold on 8/21/2012 11:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
Wait.. what? Did you just admit that the cost-benefit analysis of CO2 reduction is abysmal, that we'd be making ourselves poorer and essentially killing fellow humans, forcing untold millions to spend more of their lives in abject poverty, in a sacrifice upon the alter of environmentalism? To minimally offset something that climate scientists say is pretty much a done deal at this point anyway?

Maybe there is hope for this country, this world, after all!

Now, just join your conservative brothers in deciding to toss the UN in to the Atlantic ocean, and we'll have a real common cause.


RE: Crickets
By bupkus on 8/22/2012 12:40:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
in a sacrifice upon the alter of environmentalism
Praise Jesus! :P


RE: Crickets
By Azethoth on 8/22/2012 12:57:51 AM , Rating: 2
Wait what? Why can we not save the environment AND screw the poor people in the poor countries at the same time? It seems reasonable to me because I do not know any of them.


RE: Crickets
By Mint on 8/22/2012 6:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, conservative brothers? I'm not a conservative in any sense of the word. I'm a scientist (well, an engineer to be specific), so I came to these conclusions by looking at data.

I don't look at it in some ignorant conservative fingers-in-my-ears-AGW-doesn't-exist way, nor in some hippie AGW-must-be-stopped-now-or-the-planet-will-die kind of way. I prefer the neutral, honest way.

This is how I see it: AGW is real and the science is fairly solid, but that's not enough. No country will individually get any tangible benefits from addressing it in a non-nuclear way, so any investment is goodwill towards the betterment of humanity. That's the same class of world issues as ending world poverty, disease, illiteracy, etc. It's bad enough that the west is too selfish to spare 1% of its resources towards the latter, but even worse if we somehow come up with trillions and then spite them by using it for another cause.

It's consistent with my objection to invading Iraq to "free the Iraqi people". It may or may not wind up a net positive (we'll never know without a parallel universe), but regardless of that, it unequivocally had extremely poor cost-benefit compared to solving any number of other world conflicts. Just an awful waste of our rightly limited appetite for military action, like non-nuclear CO2 reduction is a waste of limited global goodwill.

Anyway, there isn't much for you conservatives to worry about. Despite conspiracy theories about Chu getting his way, Obama barely even tried pushing for a carbon tax or emission caps. Wind is getting a much bigger lobbying effort from natural gas tycoons like Pickens (nuclear and coal can't ramp fast enough to take care of intermittency) than environmentalists.


RE: Crickets
By KoS on 8/23/2012 8:43:20 AM , Rating: 2
What about the cost benefit analyst of having to continue the no-fly zones if we hadn't toppled the Iraqi govt? Let alone the potential continued attackes on other govt assests around the world due to the no-fly zones; ie, embassies bombings in Africa as a example.

We seem to forget about that part of the Iraqi equation.

But anyway. Please the science that man is causing the current warming trend isn't solid. It's currently, we see it's warmer and CO2 has increased. Beyond a doubt is true. But is the increase of CO2 the cause? That is still a matter of debate. But lets cut off our nose to spite our face. It's evil mans fault.


RE: Crickets
By Mint on 8/23/2012 1:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
WTF do embassy bombings in Africa have to do with invading Iraq? You can't seriously believe that the cost of no-fly zones for decades comes anywhere near the cost of the invasion, especially when the human toll is taken into account.

No, that's not how the AGW conclusion is made. We've studied how CO2 causes a radiative forcing through spectrometer analysis (rock solid), and we've looked at climate sensitivity in a many ways with outcomes in the same ballpark. There are attributes to GHG warming which don't apply to other modes of warming. We've eliminated a ton of other possible natural variables and there's really no alternative hypotheses that have remained valid.

AGW theory is not the weakest link in calling for emissions reduction. The determination of societal costs, however, is. There's way too much conjecture here as opposed to science. If the anti-AGW movements weren't so idiotic and continually making easily disprovable claims (e.g. AGW violating thermodynamics, human CO2 production being small vs. natures and therefore "obviously" irrelevant, pointing out a few cold spells in winter, claiming cooling for a decade in 2008, and a bunch of other BS) they would focus on this and make the same simple calculations that I did using the IPCC's own numbers.


RE: Crickets
By KoS on 8/23/2012 1:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe you should read the rationals Osama gave in attacking US itself and it's assests abroad.

The embassies bombings, in part, was because of the no-fly zones over Iraq. Along with the Kolbart Towers bombing. We were enforcing the no-fly zone, at least from one of the places, in Saudia Arabia. Osama didn't like we had troops in the "holy land".

In the end it all ties together.

The biggest problem with you analyst of AGW and the like is.....
quote:
using the IPCC's own numbers.
You are a tad guliable.

We have eliminated all other possible natural variables??? What?? I'm told by people they can't account for all the variables as is, so how can we say we have elimiated all possiblities? Let alone, some of the earlier models didn't take into consideration the Sun or even cloud cover.

In end no one can say with 100% what is going on! Like I have said before, let it warm or cool, I really don't care and will do the best to adapt to any changes. I hope it warms, would hate the cooling effect in our area.

Emissions and pollution that is another topic.


RE: Crickets
By JediJeb on 8/23/2012 11:43:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
LOL, conservative brothers? I'm not a conservative in any sense of the word. I'm a scientist (well, an engineer to be specific), so I came to these conclusions by looking at data.


Quite interesting how data can be interpreted differently. I am a scientist, chemist by training, and I have also looked at the data and I do agree that the climate is changing in a warmer direction, but do not believe that human activity has more than a tiny influence if any at all on that trend.

One trend that I have seen in several data sets is that temperature rise actually precedes CO2 level rise. This is exactly what you would expect to see as the Earth naturally warms because CO2 is less soluble in water as the temperature increases, therefore it will leave the oceans and move into the atmosphere naturally as the temperatures rise. Also even though the radical side of the AGW crowd like to say that the CO2 rise is almost 100% due to human activity, that does not pan out because if that is what is causing rising temperatures then it should precede temperature rise.

There are still too many variables to consider to make any 100% assumptions about what is causing it and where it may end up. Reducing pollution is always a good thing, but defining CO2 as a pollutant I can't get behind yet. If we find that water is the worse problem causing warming do we then somehow try to regulate how water evaporates? I bought in to AGW in the beginning, but the proponents just kept getting more and more radical with their predictions and "fixes" to the point I began to look into the data, and then I began to not believe as much of what I was hearing. As with many things, the truth often lies in the boring middle ground than on the wild fringes, but that boring middle ground just doesn't sell so people tend to over hype both ends of the argument to try to get attention.


RE: Crickets
By Mint on 8/23/2012 2:08:22 PM , Rating: 2
The data sets you're talking about have no real bearing determining causal relationships in the last century. To make an analogy, if I had a NO2/N2O4 system in a balloon, and put that balloon in chamber that lets me change it's pressure, the fraction that is N2O4 changes goes up with higher pressure (and indeed it will lag the pressure change). Now, if I had a tube going into the balloon and injected N2O4 in it, would you deny that the balloon's pressure increase was due to the N2O4 addition (since causality was the other way in the chamber experiment)? Of course not!

In fact, that data supports the notion of a positive feedback factor: as the CO2 injection heats up the earth, you an additional amount of CO2 from the oceans. It's not enough to cause instability/runaway, but it's enough to create a gain. Same with water vapor, as you likely know from Clausius-Clapeyron. The fallacy among AGW-skeptics that more evaporation leads to more clouds also flies in the face of this law: the higher evaporation occurs precisely because the warmer air will hold more water, and needs more before precipitating.

Indisputable evidence for AGW is an impossible standard, because we don't have another earth that we can play with, and the time scales are too long. Using that as a basis to deny AGW is the same M.O. as evolution denialists. We'll never, ever see first hand evidence that a species can, through variation, randomly develop the genetic code from scratch to produce an eyeball. Is that a good basis to deny that it happened?

Take a look at the Foster-Rahmstoff study:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmsto...
Can you think of any other earth based phenomena in modern history where mankind has been so clueless that decades of study didn't even put the correct hypothesis on the radar?


RE: Crickets
By senecarr on 8/23/2012 1:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
While I like your analytics about it, you do have some holes.
1. You're assuming that paying 5c/KWhr more won't create the demand to lower the cost to deploy it.
2. You're assuming the $1T in energy requirements would buy the same amount of aid to humanitarian efforts under a warming earth that they would under one that hasn't undergone warming. Under 4C higher average global temperature, just growing enough food for the US could potentially grow to a $1 Trillion cost.


RE: Crickets
By bupkus on 8/22/2012 12:35:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
moneeeeey
You saw it here first.


take this with a grain of salt
By muhahaaha on 8/21/2012 8:49:44 PM , Rating: 2
Climate is cyclic. There are periods of extreme cold and periods of extreme heat.

Although we are jamming a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere now than we were a century ago, it is still a tiny fraction of the amount of CO2 that was present millions of years ago. I tried to find some supporting evidence and this is the best source:

http://www.grida.no/images/series/vg-climate/large...

If you have the inclination to view the graph, pay particular attention to the cyclical nature, and how we're pretty much normal for our place in the cycle. Global warming due to CO2 emissions cannot be proven by any ability we currently possess. There is no reason to believe that some kind of catastrophic change will happen any time soon. If the graph is anything close to accurate, we're about to head into the next ice age.

GWT is mostly a political game that politicians are playing to advance their own financial gains.

Mother Nature has an amazing ability to fix the damage that anything has caused her.




By muhahaaha on 8/21/2012 9:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe I misspoke about us heading to another ice-age, that graph was dealing with thousands of years, not millions. But definitely another cooling trend seems likely. It was from the 50's, but most of the data I found from more recent times seems artificially inflated.

I know my post will be sent to 0 Kelvin for not supporting all the doomsday global warming predictors, but whatever.

An asteroid will probably hit us long before we ruin the atmosphere. Call Bruce Willis if you care.


RE: take this with a grain of salt
By nick2000 on 8/21/2012 10:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
The graph stops in 1950 so we really cannot conclude much. However, the high temperature point present in 1950 had already been there longer than in the past.
Put another way, this graph does not disprove global warming. We need the same graph extended with new data.


RE: take this with a grain of salt
By thewah on 8/21/2012 10:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Current CO2 levels are well off that chart you posted. We are outside your "cycles".


RE: take this with a grain of salt
By muhahaaha on 8/21/2012 10:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
As I said, finding modern data that isn't questionable is difficult. Scientists are pandering to politics. We all know that these NOAA studies are flawed (sensors malfunctioning, being next to a heat source, fill in the blank).

I don't want to get into a rant here but the CO2 levels right now are just below 400ppm. That's pretty normal.

http://ilovecarbondioxide.com/p/about-co2.html

We were at 2500 ppm in the Carboniferous period ( hint, when trees began developing ).

Want to reduce the CO2 in our atmosphere? Don't call a scientist or politician... just plant a tree.


By muhahaaha on 8/21/2012 10:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
My dad is a nuclear physicist, and he is brilliant, but he is a GWT advocate. He taught me everything I know.

I blew through HS and College and never studied. Graduated, and am now trying to explain how much of a dumb donkey butt he is. LOL.


RE: take this with a grain of salt
By ArcliteHawaii on 8/22/12, Rating: -1
By Dr of crap on 8/22/2012 8:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
Hey less population means MORE food for us survivers!
I'm guessing I'm going to be here - you?
Because by the sounds of it this will happen soon. Right?

We are breathing now and not dying. So when is your model going to start happening?? Exactly WE don't know! Don't even know IF it will. Might have a volcano explosion that will do more damage than your CO2 prediction.

Me - I'm burning as much oil and gas as I can to ROB my grand kids of whatever I had !!! Having a barbeque with all the food not being eaten by the rest of the population! Come on over!


RE: take this with a grain of salt
By JediJeb on 8/22/2012 2:15:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Second, 400ppm is normal FOR THE FCKING DINOSAURS, not for humans. And CO2 2500ppm?? Dude, are you kidding me? That was 600 fcking million years ago! You couldn't even breathe the air that long ago. It was toxic to modern animals. Animals of the of the quaternary period evolved with 250-300 PPM CO2. Boost it above that and you're putting entire ecosystems at risk.


So the past 3 billion years of Earth's history means nothing, only the past few thousand years where the climate has been optimum for humans is what we should judge all climate by?

Maybe the current climate and CO2 levels are just a fluke and humans are thriving during a climate anomaly which will soon end and destroy our entire civilization through purely natural events. To rant on about how higher CO2 levels were only good for dinosaurs and forest of the past and should never happen again is the most arrogant of human beliefs that the entire world's climate and environment should revolve around what is good for humans.

quote:
First of all, scientists are NOT pandering to politics.


That is false on so many levels, and not only in the climate field. I work in an environmental testing laboratory and I can tell you that most of the "science" put out that we have to follow for analysis of the environment for pollution is purely political driven. There are so many newer and better ways to test water, soil and air for pollution and contamination, but we are only allowed to use techniques that are often 20 years old simply because the EPA has not "approved" the newer testing and forces us to use the old ways.

If you want to be successful in science you have to play the politics.

quote:
Will humanity survive? Probably. Will billions of people die in the process? Probably. I'm all for controlling the population, but it seems to me that it should be done through birth control not through massive widespread deaths.


Population is not a problem like many want to play it up to be either. I did the math in a post here before but the short and simple is that with current global population you can give every man, woman, and child on the planet something like a 2000 square foot house and fit all those houses on the land mass of Greenland, that would leave the rest of the entire planet to grow food on to support them. People today do not starve because of lack of tillable land, they die because of politics that prevent food from being distributed to everyone. We can double our current population and not even notice it if it weren't for political problems.

Also if you think about it, every man on Earth has to marry a woman and have two children just to maintain the world's population over time, and today in many cultures(not just in China) that is not happening. Russia is actually suffering from a loss of population because their younger generations are not having children. It will be a very long time before anyone has to worry about the world being over populated. The ones who are decrying such a problem are the ruling classes who find they are becoming too outnumbered by the lower classes and want to control that population to prevent their inevitable loss of power.


RE: take this with a grain of salt
By JediJeb on 8/22/2012 5:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Second, 400ppm is normal FOR THE FCKING DINOSAURS, not for humans. And CO2 2500ppm?? Dude, are you kidding me? That was 600 fcking million years ago! You couldn't even breathe the air that long ago. It was toxic to modern animals. Animals of the of the quaternary period evolved with 250-300 PPM CO2. Boost it above that and you're putting entire ecosystems at risk.


I forgot to add this before

250 - 350 ppm – background (normal) outdoor air level
350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
1,000 – 2,000 ppm - level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air.
2,000 – 5,000 ppm – level associated with headaches, sleepiness, and stagnant, stale, stuffy air. Poor concentration, loss of attention, increased heart rate and slight nausea may also be present.
>5,000 ppm – this indicates unusual air conditions where high levels of other gases could also be present. Toxicity or oxygen deprivation could occur. This is the permissible exposure limit for daily workplace exposures.
>40,000 ppm - this level is immediately harmful due to oxygen deprivation.

Seems even at 2500ppm we could survive and I would imagine within a few generations we would adapt to those levels without much problem, just as long as the O2 concentration doesn't drop too much. Of course if the plant life increases from the increased CO2 then O2 should not drop off.

It also is interesting that even at a level of 400ppm we would still be in the lower range of CO2 concentrations outdoors that are considered normal for our indoor environments. Currently most animals, bacteria and plants seem to do well in normal indoor environments so I doubt that even approaching the 1000ppm level would destroy the entire ecosystem.


RE: take this with a grain of salt
By Zaralath on 8/22/2012 5:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
Wouldn't 'climate scientists' have a vested interest in promoting what's best for their careers? (i.e. more funding for research)

Just a thought :)


By eggster007 on 8/22/2012 5:57:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mother Nature has an amazing ability to fix the damage that anything has caused her.


Yes, ecologically speaking the Earth is strong and resillient, it survived the Dinosaurs and it will survive after mankind......Earth does not need the human race to survive.

quote:
GWT is mostly a political game that politicians are playing to advance their own financial gains.


If they're right, then the small changes we make will help Earth's healing without the Earth making changes that have a dramatic effect on the human race.

...and if they're wrong, okay so we did some things that perhaps we did not need to do, but you know what....at least we're still alive and we've learned a lesson about the boys who cry wolf.

Why do people believe the changes that are being asked on all of us on a global scale are such a big deal anyways?


So
By FITCamaro on 8/22/2012 7:41:09 AM , Rating: 2
Was man responsible when it happened early in the 20th century too? We didn't have all these cars back then. Yet it still happened.




RE: So
By ArcliteHawaii on 8/22/2012 7:57:43 AM , Rating: 1
Don't be a douchenozzle. It didn't happen. The CO2 levels were 300ppm which is within historical variation over the past million years or so, although the upward trend was already apparent at that point. Today we're almost at 400PPM.

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/uploads/ats42335_C...


RE: So
By Dr of crap on 8/22/2012 8:33:12 AM , Rating: 2
Wait so your saying the UPWARD TREND was already happening by the EARLY 20th century BEFORE we had cars all over the world and all the CO2 increasing pieces in place today!!???!!
Hmmmmmmmmm.... Not sure you just helped you argument.


RE: So
By ArcliteHawaii on 8/22/2012 3:46:33 PM , Rating: 3
Coal produces much more CO2 than oil, and humans have been burning coal for hundreds of years. That accelerated during the 19th century.


RE: So
By FITCamaro on 8/22/2012 5:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
First you believe that. We have no actual proof of it.

Second, even with man burning coal, it was FAR more limited. Trying to say a few million people burning coal was just as bad as billions of people burning gas, coal, etc. is just retarded.

Third it did happen. That's how the Northwest Passage was first traversed. At least the first recorded traversal anyway.


RE: So
By Mint on 8/23/2012 2:38:47 PM , Rating: 2
Let me get this straight.

You're discounting CO2 as a cause of GW because you think warming started at ~1910, whereas auto use ramped up later? That's the most pathetic line of reasoning I've ever heard on DT.

First of all, we didn't have accurate and widely dispersed temperature readings in the early 20th century. Secondly, you can't cherry pick that as the start of AGW, both due to accuracy and due to a couple tenths of a degree of other variation. Finally, even today - with a billion vehicles worldwide - cars are only responsible for 1/4 of total CO2 emissions.


Ocean Level
By JAY963 on 8/21/2012 9:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
Don't worry. I was at the beach last weekend. The ocean is exactly where it has always been.




RE: Ocean Level
By bupkus on 8/22/2012 12:42:20 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, but the shoreline is moving.


RE: Ocean Level
By Dr of crap on 8/22/2012 8:28:15 AM , Rating: 2
Prove it!


RE: Ocean Level
By Bad-Karma on 8/22/2012 10:00:15 AM , Rating: 2
No...those were just waves....


Yawn
By overlandpark4me on 8/21/2012 9:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
Funny, I don't see too many stories when ice increases in a location, but the second something melts, we're doooooooooomed....What a bunch of tards




RE: Yawn
By ArcliteHawaii on 8/22/2012 6:59:32 AM , Rating: 1
The only tard here is you. Isolated incidents aren't reported b/c they're isolated fcking incidents. The trend is a complete collapse.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/speci...

It's unprecedented. The sea ice has been so regular for hundreds of thousands of years that entire ecosystems have developed to rely on them, like walruses and polar bears. Now all those creatures will go extinct.

The effect on man is hard to predict, but most of the indicators are extremely negative: less food, less fresh water, less livable areas, more disease, etc. etc.

You don't want to believe or understand it b/c preventing it affects they way you live your life. But all you're doing is make the pain worse down the road. So keep denying it if you want, you'll suffer just the same as the rest of us.


RE: Yawn
By kattanna on 8/22/2012 2:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Isolated incidents aren't reported b/c they're isolated fcking incidents. The trend is a complete collapse.


LOL you present that limited graph as "proof"?

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n5/full/ngeo...

look there for new science showing that in fact some large glacier regions are gaining ice

quote:
The sea ice has been so regular for hundreds of thousands of years


WOW.. do you need to read up on geologic history, cause it hasnt.

quote:
It's unprecedented


not hardly.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo...

here you will see that glacier melting was as swift back in the 1930's as it is today.

also there were wide spread reports from back then about sea ice being so low that ships easily sailed through the area.

quote:
entire ecosystems have developed to rely on them, like walruses and polar bears. Now all those creatures will go extinct.


http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/07/20/12105...

new science is clearly showing that PB, polar bears, actually go back 4-5 million years and have lived through far more extreme inter glacials that were far warmer then we have today

quote:
The only tard here is you


remember the old adage.. when you point your finger at someone else.. you have 3 pointing back at you

;>)


RE: Yawn
By amosbatto on 8/26/2012 2:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

quote:
Isolated incidents aren't reported b/c they're isolated fcking incidents. The trend is a complete collapse.

LOL you present that limited graph as "proof"?
Link
look there for new science showing that in fact some large glacier regions are gaining ice

You are cherry picking. The global mean ice loss on a glacier is 14 meters per year:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Glacier_Mass_Bal...

Glaciers worldwide (not including the poles and Greenland) are loosing a average of 300 km3 of ice per year:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G10002/Sup...

94% of glaciers worldwide are shrinking:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers...

Given the predicted rises in temperatures, it is predicted that most glaciers outside the Antarctic and Greenland will be gone by 2100.

quote:
quote:
Entire ecosystems have developed to rely on them, like walruses and polar bears. Now all those creatures will go extinct.

Link
new science is clearly showing that PB, polar bears, actually go back 4-5 million years and have lived through far more extreme inter glacials that were far warmer then we have today

Well, yes the article you link to does show that polar bears did manage to live through the interglacial periods, but remember that the Eemian interglacial was only 1 to 1.5 degrees Celcius warmer than the 1880-1920 average and the early Pliocene was about 2 degrees warmer. We have already had 0.8 degrees of temperature rise and the predicted rise will likely be over 2 degrees. The article shows from the genetic evidence that the polar bears were reduced to a very small isolated populations during the interglacial periods, and then they rebounded. It is highly likely that they won't be able to do that in the coming temperature rise, because the change will be faster with higher temperatures than previous interglacial periods. The article shows that bear species did interbreed in the past, (and it may happen again if the temperature changes are gradual enough to give polar bears the chance to start breeding with black and brown bears) but then they will no longer be polar bears as we know them.


What if.......
By eggster007 on 8/22/2012 5:39:01 AM , Rating: 1
Of course it's easy for us all as people to brush this off as another inconclusive assumption that we're all doomed.

My generation will be okay regardless, but our children and our childrens children are most likley going to pay for our distinct lack of action based on an assumed certainty that this is nothing but a money spinner for someone somewhere.

But! what if reports like this are right (or cary enough truth) and that without change everything is not going to be okay?

What if these ecological phenoms are actually a pre-cursor to a more serious series of events that can not be reversed?

Humans are of course adaptable but we don't like big changes and these larger changes normally come at a cost....

So instead of gambling that all this means nothing (or everything), why not start making small changes to our lifestyles now so changes in the future are not so big and not so difficult or may not even be required, if life has taught me anything it's that it's better to be safe, than sorry.




RE: What if.......
By ArcliteHawaii on 8/22/2012 7:09:08 AM , Rating: 3
Dude, your idea will never work! It makes too much sense!

We can make a difference. I'm extremely careful about how much electricity I use. I drive a small, efficient car. I used to bike to work, now I work from home with no commute. I live in the tropics, but never use my A/C, etc.

But I fear it will come to naught. The Chinese are hell bent on burning coal. The Americans can't bear to give up their SUVs or 4000 sq ft homes that need to be heated. Brazil is razing the rainforest (a major cooling influence) to the tune of 1000s of acres a day. Everyone has their little piece, but noone looks at the big picture.


belief
By John Mors on 8/21/2012 9:32:27 PM , Rating: 3
As a warehouse packer, I'm as qualified as any climatologist or geophysicist to comment on the environment.
Just because someone has satellites and a lot of fancy degrees, doesn't mean they know what's going on.

If arctic sea ice is white and reflects sunlight, then why is the ice in my whiskey clear?
I think they doctor all these photos.

Anyway, just because I don't understand something and have no relational context, doesn't mean I'm wrong.




People are morons
By Philippine Mango on 8/22/2012 9:16:57 AM , Rating: 1
Over and over I keep reading how it's perfectly fine to be releasing trillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year because 'the dinosaurs lived like that. That we WILL survive and that there is no way the earth will turn into Mars or Venus just because everyone wants to drive their 3 ton SUV just so they can walk their dog.

The point that climatologists are making is that we are doing damage to the environment that we currently enjoy and take for granted. While that earth will not necessarily become entirely inhospitable, various species will be directly impacted by our insatiable appetite for burn fossil fuels. Species will go extinct, some land will become useless, others will become useful, water may become scarce, food will become more difficult to make (we rely heavily on fertilizer), etc.

Again, I'm not worried about humans as a species going extinct, but what I AM worried about is a large die off a many species of animals, having less arable land, massive starvation, and an overall much lower quality of life. I mean even if the climate can't warm at all from CO2 because it's impossible, the emissions of CO2 causes other ecological damage such as increasing the acidity in the ocean which is damaging the coral reefs. I like that kind of shit and while you may not, this is one example of something people's behavior has a direct, negative impact on others.

We have setup our societies to completely fail due to our heavy reliance on what is a limited resource and our culture of not planning for the worst. The great thing about large corporations that are run well is that they plan for this sort of thing ahead of time and they leverage their capital by investing in things that will secure their future. Unfortunately, the common man does not do such things and instead lives for today, doesn't save a dime. For example, when the common person builds a house, they scrimp on all the things that would make the house less expensive to own and instead spend it on all the wrong things. Instead of spending money on making the house energy efficient or self sufficient, they spend it on large windows, vaulted ceilings, copper gutters, lots of water intensive landscaping, outdoor kitchens, granite counter tops, or other such superfluous garbage. So while this means the homeowner can live in this house today, if water becomes scarce, energy becomes expensive or even unavailable, now this house has become unlivable. This is just one example though, and in essence when there is sudden adversity, instead of people taking responsibility for their irresponsibility, accepting the consequences and taking things in stride, if things get bad enough, society just simply crumbles and total chaos ensues. People have become so very complacent and evidence of this will be the responses to my post I'll be reading.




RE: People are morons
By Dr of crap on 8/22/2012 9:53:43 AM , Rating: 2
While I understand your post and AGREE with it, I'm just wondering what your house is like?

While I do not have granite countertops, there is a limit to what you can afford and what is available. I bought an existing house and as such took what I could get, vaulted ceiling, water intensive grass/landscape, you get what I'm saying.

We have/use what society has for us. Cost IS a factor. I can't afford to install a heat pump, cost is the issue. I burn natural gas to heat.

What is yours like??


Winters coming
By createcoms on 8/22/2012 5:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
The ice will return!




weather is ...what weather does
By lenardo on 8/22/2012 12:37:19 PM , Rating: 2
in regards to co2- its PLANT FOOD.
more co2= more plants= more food= healthier people/animals- generally

the problem with mainstream climatology is it is focused ONLY on CO2...CO2 is not a problem- every reputable scientist on both sides of the issue say co2 will cause warming

its the feedbacks that is the issue- especially with the strongest greenhouse gas- and the most abundant greenhouse gas...WATER VAPOR.. H2O...

pro AGW scientists say that there will be a strong positive feedback in reacting to the co2 for water vapor that will boost warming to unprecidented results that we see in the ipcc reports as figured by their models- which have a positive feedback programed into the software.

skeptical scientists say that there will be a negative feedback that will be ~half or less of what the "base" warming caused by co2 would be (ie co2 does About 1.8c per doubling- skeptics say that it will be ~1c of warming, not the 3-5 the ipcc says)

so far the raw observational data from satellites and other sources are saying that the warming that is occuring is less than the ipcc and more skeptical results.

there was a recent paper in published a climate journal that says that from ~1970ish thru 2000 cloud cover globally reduced by ~2ish%....doing the watts per meter squared conversion...that increase of the sun's energy hitting land and oceans can account for a significant portion of the warming that occurred from ~1980-1998-ie it was mostly Natural.

there was a huge arctic storm ~2 weeks ago that caused a big jump in melt.

the greenland "melt" that was reported...was MAYBE 3" in depth.,..for 5 days, then it refroze.

but that will never come up, only "record ice melt!@!!!!!!!"

and in march when the max northern hemisphere sea ice is recorded, it will be within 5% of the average...

funny how no one mentions the antarctic sea ice....

wonder why..(hint, its not shrinking/declining....)




Meanwhile in Antarctica....
By vortmax2 on 8/22/2012 2:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
...the ice is growing. I guess lots of the heat this year (because of a persistent blocky weather pattern, I might add), is in the Northern Hemi...

Moving along...




"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki