13
   

Polar ice advancing, global warming is dead

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2015 08:11 pm
You and i won't . . . the trend for the last 10,000 years or so has been about every 1700 to 2000 years. The last cold spell seems to have hit bottom just after 1700 (the coldest recorded winter in Europe was 1709-10). It'll many centuries before we are there again.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2015 02:43 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I agree that , over the planet, most areas can show sea level rises and GW data, but, like so many things we assert, Im not certain we can yet attribute it to humans. Actually, if you look at atmospheric CO2 since the Mesozoic, we see that the CO2 level is dropping markedly, and this recent rise may be an artifact.

We are pumpimg millions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every day. Carbon that had been trapped SINCE THE MESOZOIC in fossil fuels. You bet we warming the planet.

Read the link I provided, a bookket writen for non-specialists by the US National Academy of Science and the UK equivalent. See if thecdata you want is in there. Then we can talk.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2015 03:00 am
@Setanta,
This is not a natural cycle. It's humans unleashing a brutal correction of the climate.
farmerman
 
  6  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2015 07:03 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Carbon that had been trapped SINCE THE MESOZOIC in fossil fuels. You bet we warming the planet.
Availability of carbon per "geologic age" has absolutely nothing to do with formation and trapping of foassil fuels, its all due to the perturbations of continental shelves an shallows where organisms could deposit their little bodies over time . The tectonics of Rhodinia, the existence and joining of Laurasia and Gondwana into the super Pangean Continent controlled what got deposited and where.
IF we were to consider when the largest deposits or coal, oil, limestone and Siderite occured, it was the Paleozoic. After all they didnt call the last third of the Paleozoic , the "CARBONIFEROUS" for nothing .


ANYWAY, if we are convinced that we must do something NOW, I am confused why all the Anthropo-GW folks are against gas drilling? That makes no scientific sense. Heres a new industry that can be regulated an made to tow environmental regs in order to develop their fields, yet the masses of Anthropo-GW folks are equally busy at drilling for gas .
The US has, in the last 3 years, due to the changing over of our power plants from Coal to natural gas, REDUCED the CO2 emissions by HALF. and we can even do better by engineering design of combined cycle plants with nifty scrubbers or deep injection of scrubbed exhausts.
We have several 1000 MEGAWATT plants using gas in the Pa Hills and these plants are maybe 1/10th the size of an equivalent coal plant (they dont need these huge acid dump ponds and coal piles and railroads.

My faith in human beings "getting it" is slipping away.
Whether Im right or youre right- most of the world isnt doing **** to a phenom that may or may not be under our control. We can do some relatively minor adjustments that have shown to yield big results.

NOW, having said that, we will be, in another 10 million years or less, be in a CO2 deficit. SO much so that we may lose C3 plants and rely on only C4 plants to be all of our food stuffs.
Eg , Rice and all triticallies are C3 I believe. (But, what the hell, we can teach em to eat pollenta-corn is a C4)
The reason Im not quickly calling for the canning of CO2 exhausts is that we may need some sinks to "Store" this gas (corals, marls, organic muds, duff etc) or we may be in a true 6th extinction of animals and plants whose entire beings encircle one type of plant material .

gungasnake
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2015 10:56 am
http://www.principia-scientific.org/man-made-climate-change-not-about-science-admits-naomi-klein.html?utm_campaign=aug-20-2015&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2015 11:46 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
My faith in human beings "getting it" is slipping away.
Whether Im right or youre right- most of the world isnt doing **** to a phenom that may or may not be under our control. We can do some relatively minor adjustments that have shown to yield big results.

The main reason this is the case is that the US govt and oil lobby have been throwing wrenches in UN negotiations all along, with lines such as "we need more data"... You're part of the very problem you decry.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2015 12:49 pm
This looks to me like the beginning of the shut-down of the thermohaline ocean system: http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/north-atlantic-cold-blob
The article wrote:
But the massive ice melt occurring in the Arctic has introduced a lot of cold, fresh water into the mix, and it's not behaving the same as cold salt water. It's preventing the sinking that usually happens with cold water, as fresh water is less dense than salt water, and that could be weakening the circulation.

"The fact that a record-hot planet Earth coincides with a record-cold northern Atlantic is quite stunning," Stefan Rahmstorf, one of the authors of the study published in Nature Climate Change, told the Washington Post. "There is strong evidence — not just from our study — that this is a consequence of the long-term decline of the Gulf Stream System, i.e. the Atlantic ocean’s overturning circulation AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation), in response to global warming."

Rahmstorf also told the Washington Post he doesn't expect the blob to remain at record cold levels indefinitely, though the circulation should continue to decline. Everything is connected, and climate scientists believe that connection will drive temperatures, and sea levels, higher and higher.

http://dsx.weather.com//util/image/w/download.jpg?v=ap&w=980&h=551&api=7db9fe61-7414-47b5-9871-e17d87b8b6a0
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Oct, 2015 08:07 pm
@rosborne979,
Oh, dear.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2015 08:37 am
They have been measuring Arctic sea ice by satellite for about 35 years.
Six Thousandths Of One Percent (0.006%) More Of The World’s Ice Melted This Summer — ‘At this rate it’ll take 166 years to see a 1% reduction. This is like taking a glass of ice from a frozen swimming pool. The number is so small that it is outside the statistical margins of certainty’

1922: ‘Extraordinary warmth in the Arctic during the last few years’ — Polar ice sheet to melt down? — Scientists astonished by Arctic warming. Northern United States to become “sub-tropical.” November 2nd, 1922 article in the Washington Post article titled “Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt”:” 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 Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone…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.”


1923 Shock News: ‘Radical’ Climate Change Melting Down The North Pole

1935: Russian Ship Sailed 500 Miles From The North Pole In Ice-Free Water catastrophic proportions and people living in lowlands along their shores would be inundated…temps in Arctic had increased 10 deg. F since 1900–an ‘enormous’ rise’

Flashback 1947 : International Agency Needed To Stop The Arctic Meltdown: Same story – different millennium — ‘May 30 1947.-The possibility of a prodigious rise in the surface of ocean with resultant widespread inundation if Antarctic ice regions and the major Greenland icecap should reduce at same rate as present melting in Arctic…’

Flashback 1947: ‘Alarming’ Rise In Arctic Temperatures To Melt Greenland And Flood The Coasts Posted on August 18, 2012 — Ten degrees of warming in Arctic with CO2 at 320 PPM‘

A NASA study published in the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters on October 4, 2007 found “unusual winds” in the Arctic blew “older thicker” ice to warmer southern waters. Despite the media’s hyping of global warming, Ignatius Rigor, a co-author of the NASA study, explained, “While the total [Arctic] area of ice cover in recent winters has remained about the same, during the past two years an increased amount of older, thicker perennial sea ice was swept by winds out of the Arctic Ocean into the Greenland Sea. What grew in its place in the winters between 2005 and 2007 was a thin veneer of first-year sea ice, which simply has less mass to survive the summer melt.” […] “Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic,” said Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and leader of the study.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Dec, 2015 09:46 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
They have been measuring Arctic sea ice by satellite for about 35 years.
Six Thousandths Of One Percent (0.006%) More Of The World’s Ice Melted This Summer — ‘At this rate it’ll take 166 years to see a 1% reduction. This is like taking a glass of ice from a frozen swimming pool. The number is so small that it is outside the statistical margins of certainty’
Arctic sea ice conditions before 1976 aren't unknown: researchers combined data and records from indirect sources known as proxy records.

http://i63.tinypic.com/20qf9fp.jpg

Arctic sea ice extent for November 2015 averaged 10.06 million square kilometers (3.88 million square miles), the sixth lowest November in the satellite record.
This is 910,000 square kilometers (351,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 230,000 square kilometers (89,000 square miles) above the record low monthly average for November that occurred in 2006.
At the end of the month [November], extent was well below average in both the Barents Sea and the Bering Strait regions. Extent was above average in eastern Hudson Bay, but below average in the western part of the bay.

Through 2015, Arctic sea ice has now been declining at a rate of 13.4 percent per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.

http://i66.tinypic.com/ibyqza.jpg
Quote:

“Every year since 2007 has seen more than 10 million square kilometers of seasonal ice melt, reflecting both a transition towards thinner winter ice that melts out more easily in summer as well as changes in the Arctic climate that foster more ice melt each year,” said NSIDC senior scientist Julienne Stroeve.

In addition to an earlier and record-low maximum, early ice retreat and a fast July and August rate of ice loss contributed to this year’s low minimum extent. Strong winds from the eastern Beaufort Sea contributed to earlier than average melt onset and led to the early development of open water in the Beaufort Sea and along the coast of Canada. The pace of seasonal ice loss also picked up rapidly in July, with Arctic-wide temperatures reaching the second highest during the satellite record (with 2007 ranked as the highest). By the end of July, the fast pace of ice loss during the month resulted in the 2015 extent falling within 550,000 square kilometers (212,000 square miles) of the 2012 record low extent, and tracked below the levels recorded for 2013 and 2014. However, temperatures for August were not particularly warm, and extent ended up fourth lowest.

“Another characteristic of this summer was further loss of the thicker multiyear portion of the ice pack. In the past, most of this multiyear ice was too thick and compact to melt completely, but now it’s more vulnerable,” said Walt Meier, research scientist at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Meier is an affiliate scientist at NSIDC and is part of the Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis team.

“Ten years ago this would have been an astonishing summer of ice melt,” said Ted Scambos, NSIDC’s lead scientist. “Now it is just another season in a decade of low years.”


Sources: National Snow and Ice Data Center
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 18 Dec, 2015 11:13 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Did you read my post that you replied to? This has been going on for at least a century. What period of time is applicable to measure world wide change...previously, geologists have used about 100,000 years as a minimum. Climatologists also used this time span. Now we use 10 years based on Auntie Mable's arthritis and Al Gore wanting to be rich before he dies.
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 01:40 am
@Ionus,
100,000 years is about the distance from one interglacial to the next. That is not a minimum for measuring climate change, it is only the duration from one major kind of chancge to the next similar point in the next cycle, though granted the ice ages are a major climate change going on for the last several million years, but they aren't the only one. For example, changes in solar output can cause climate change, and those aren't necessarily periodic. As far as we know they can happen at any time. And of course those changes aren't what's concerning us now, since we are dumping carbon sequestered over millions of years back into the atmosphere in a matter of decades. Nature doesn't do that, so talking about 100,000 years is irrelavant to the discussion now, since we're overwhelming n ature. Climatologists actually use 30 years as a benchmark for climate change not 100,000. If you're talking aperiodic unique events, as we are now, it's however long it lasts, and for us that has now been since about the middle of the 19th century, when industrial civilization started taking off, to today. And the change is statistically significant. Remember there is pretty much never just one thing going on at a time. There are many, and climate is the reult of the interaction of all those things.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 09:05 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
That is not a minimum for measuring climate change, it is only the duration from one major kind of chancge to the next similar point in the next cycle,
If you can measure change within that cycle, then tell me where we are now in regards to that cycle. Wont you have to know that to determine a difference from the normal?
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Dec, 2015 10:37 am
@Ionus,
The current estimate is that this interglacial has at least 10000 years to go. Unless you've figured out some way to prolong your life until then, there are more immediate dangers that need to be circumvented before our remote descendants have to break out the superheavy duty parkas and mukluks.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 12:07 am
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
Whilst Ice Ages have tended to last for up to 100,000 years, the intervening interglacial periods have usually been much shorter in duration, at around 10,000 years in length....The last interglacial occurred about 120,000 years ago. Today, the Earth's climate is again within an interglacial period, although the orbital theory of climate change, which explains the glacial-interglacial transitions, predicts that we may be coming towards its end. Indeed, during the 1960s, many scientists suggested that the observed fall in Northern Hemisphere temperatures at that time reflected the gradual onset of a new Ice Age.

http://www.enviropedia.org.uk/Climate_Change/Interglacials.php

The ice retreated 10,000 years ago. Are we in an interglacial of 10,000 year cycles or an inter-Ice Age of 100,000 year cycles? I will let you tell me because I want to know if you think the temp would be going up or down naturally, and what that temp should be. It is not enough to say the climate is changing, it is always changing. What should the temp be? Where is the natural temp headed, up or down?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 02:26 pm
@Ionus,
So essentially your argument is you have no clue about anything so that means no one else has a clue either.
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 02:53 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
The current estimate is that this interglacial has at least 10000 years to go.
Where did you get that estimate?
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 21 Dec, 2015 07:31 pm
@parados,
Enlighten me oh wise one....forget the ad hominems, and answer the question. You can answer the question, cant you or is this just a stupid bluff on your part?
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2015 03:49 pm
@rosborne979,
Ice ages seem to be correlated with long term periodicity of various cycles in the earth's orbit, the Milankovitch cycles. When the cycles align, and other conditions are right, we get an ice age, and they're running now at about every 100,000 years. Various proxies find interglacial length varying between about 11,000 years to double that.

There have been some influential studies which say this interglacial won't end for up to 50,000 years, and studies also say that increased CO2 in the atmosphere may lessen the impact of the next ice age, when it comes.

From Wikipedia, "Milankovitch Cycles"
Quote:
The amount of solar radiation (insolation) in the Northern Hemisphere at 65° N seems to be related to occurrence of an ice age. Astronomical calculations show that 65° N summer insolation should increase gradually over the next 25,000 years.[23] A regime of eccentricity lower than the current value will last for about the next 100,000 years. Changes in northern hemisphere summer insolation will be dominated by changes in obliquity ε. No declines in 65° N summer insolation, sufficient to cause a glacial period, are expected in the next 50,000 years.....


More recent work by Berger and Loutre suggests that the current warm climate may last another 50,000 years.[25]


Citations for the research indicated by the numbers in brackets may be found at the end of the Wikipedia article.
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Tue 22 Dec, 2015 06:02 pm
@MontereyJack,
The reason I ask is that various ice core samples clearly show that we are within the peak of the most recent warm period and that it could turn to the downslope at any time. And it could happen very quickly, we just don't know for sure. Although it may take many thousands of years to reach the bottom of the chart again (which is I think what you are referring to) the change to a downtrend could happen at any time.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/400000yearslarge1.gif?w=720
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 01:53:01