North pole to melt this year?

MOP, I'm fairly sure you didn't gather those data or draw that graph. Please link to the source.

texasflag.gif
 
sorry guys....yeah, that was my source.

hornpharmd....fair question, i don't think pre-1970 data is worthless...just highly suspect. it's all we have though....but heck, just use the data from 1970 and the same point is made. i notice these graphs got your attention a bit guys. what do you think?
 
oh...to be clear, it is yet to be seen from the graphs i should which came first, the chicken or the egg. i mean there seems to be clear correlation, but is the rise in temperatures causing the PDO/AMO average to go up or is it the other way around? looking at the graph could suggest either option depending upon the time.

or of course they could be unrelated and just merely happen to correlate without any significant connection.
 
There certainly is a correlation between rising air temperatures and rising sea temperatures

The earth is retaining more heat

I wonder what possible physical explanation there could be for this?
 
so complete handwave Paso? interesting....we will see i guess. like i said, i am not being dogmatic about this particular theory...but it does seem to have some feet.

by the way, to answer your sarcastic (but lacking in apparent understanding) response....we KNOW that the multi-decadal oscillations are cyclical....if we allow for the natural mechanisms of MDO's to be the possible driver of global temperatures, it is quite reasonable to think that global warming may be merely the fact that we are in positive cycles of the PDO and the AMO and possibly variations with the AO, NAO and other MDOs as well.
 
i understood it perfectly...you were saying that it was AGW causing the PDO/AMO to be up which resulted in the global warming we saw. i am saying that is the question and not necessarily the answer. are the PDO/AMO causing the temperature rises we have seen or is the temperature rises due to Anthropogenic causes which is resulting in the PDO/AMO pattern we have observed.
 
oh..in recent ice news, we are watching a very rapid refreeze of the ice, which is separating our distance from 2007 and 2008 but still keeping us below 2009 and 2005.

here is the 15% graph:

AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png


but on the 30% graph (still what i think is a better indicator of overall health of ice, we have just caught 2009:

icecover_2010.png
 
anyone know why the image feature works sometimes and not others? i am right-clicking and then pulling down to "copy image address" but it still doesn't work sometimes.
 
ah...thanks bro...so it's not me, it's the system. i kept wondering why it would work for me sometimes and not others. i do appreciate the info.
 
It has been confirmed that Summer minimum was reached on 9/9/10 by NSIDC. The 2010 minimum is 4.6 Million Sq kms.

"The 2010 minimum ice extent was the third-lowest recorded since 1979. The 2010 minimum ice extent was 37,000 square kilometers (14,000 square miles) above 2008; 470,000 square kilometers (181,000 square miles) above the record minimum in 2007; and 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) below 2009, previously the third lowest extent since 1979. The 2010 minimum ice extent was 2.11 million square kilometers (815,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average and 1.74 million square kilometers (672,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2009 average."

nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100927_Figure2.png
 
hornpharmd...it depends on who you read because the IJIS has the low date much later...i think on the 21st or so.

regardless, as you are fond of saying and correct in saying, it is the volume that matters so the thickness of the ice is key. the PIPS has this year showing some improvement over 2008 and 2009 but still behind 2007......which for all of its fame was actually above 2008 in volume. the volume seems to be on the upswing and currently the ice is growing back very quickly (unprecedentedly so actually) so we will see what this winter brings. with an ever increasing la nina that seems to have a shot of being the most intense in 50 years if not the most intense on record we have a chance to see quite a good deal of ice recovery this winter. joe bastardi (an outspoken skeptic) believes we won't see the ice begin to melt until late april or may...which would give it quite a huge melt season. this past melt season was the shortest on record so that would be crazy to see the melt season set 2 new records in row in terms of brevity...but more importantly, if it is melting for a shorter amount of time it is reasonable to believe that it won't melt as much in all likelihood. should be interesting:

IJIS ice graph
 
hornpharmd...i read that this WAS the shortest melt season on record. are you aware of another one?

oh...and my conclusion was my opinion and i think that was clear. i didn't state it as a scientific fact.
 
yeah..i answered my own question. the NSIDC had announced wrongly that the melt season was over on September 16th (believing it had ended on September 9th). at that time they announced it as the shortest melt season in the satellite record....but later it began melting again and the new cut off for melting is september 19th so now it is no longer the shortest melt season on record:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Here is another way to look at it.

" Daily Arctic sea ice extent on September 19, 2010 was 4.60 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles). The orange line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that day."

nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100927_Figure1.png

When you just see the graph that i have been posting it may not look very significant. You seemed to have often questioned what is so significant about it. And my response that it has been well below 2 standard deviations below the 1979-2000 median has not seemed to make an impression upon you. But when you see it like this, man, it really sinks in better I think.
 
hornpharmd...i have seen those type renderings many times and we have certainly lost a bunch of ice....my point is that this is still a normal part of cycles. we KNOW that there has been FAR more ice (ice ages for instance) and far less ice.....so i don't think it's a big deal. let's see if we have indeed begun a cycle of some cooling and if the Arctic will come back over the next few years and decades. of course i will particularly be interested in the time between now and 2015 to see if a cooling trend has begun.
 
l selection also made us the one species capable of recognizing and avoiding this potential calamity. It is a shame we do not take our role as shepard more seriously.
 
you guys are comical.....so let's see if i understand your logic right here....

the world is warming and it is our fault.
this will raise the world's temperatures another 6 degrees by 2100....
in order to affect change we need to reduce CO2 by 100% by 2050 (90% reduction and 10% sequestering)
and we better start now....

hey, if you have more modest estimates let me know, but in all of my discussions about this the ONLY time anyone supporting AGW has been able to respond to the "how much do we need to reduce CO2 by to really have an appreciable affect?" was an article from Grist that gave the numbers i just mentioned above.

if that's the true, even granting AGW, we should take the money you guys want to remove from the world's economy and apply it to innovation. why should we reduce CO2 through aggressive legislation that will deeply affect economies rather than aim for innovation? it just defies logic that you guys think we have even an outside chance of reducing CO2 by 100% by 2050 with what is happening in India, China and throughout the rest of Asia and Africa. it just isn't going to happen.

if one of you guys could give me a proposal written by anyone (scientist, you, etc etc) that deals with REAL numbers and proposes how we can get there, i will be very interested to read it.
 
So, which is it MOP? Is climate change not happening? Or is it happening but doning something about it is just too damn expensive?

Your demand that someone provide you with exact cost/effect estimates is disingenuous. Any estimate would be a pure guess. What can be said, with certainty, is that the cost of doing nothing will be enormous. The cost in social, economic, agricultural, ecological, and just plain human misery will be enormous.Of course, that's relatively long-term. Short term economic consequences are much more important to some of us.

texasflag.gif
 
GT....my position has been clearly delivered many many times on this board. your asking for clarification or pretending it is confusing is ridiculous. i don't believe mankind is primarily responsible for Global Warming.....i have said that at the MOST i believe we are to blame for 20% but that even this is a high estimate and my guess is much lower.

i am merely making the point that even granting that AGW is happening, it is a fool's errand to try and stop it with cutbacks. you clearly have no reasonable response because you can't even point me to one paper or one presentation of what it will cost to try to curtail CO2 by 100%. do they not require more of you up there in Amarillo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top