North pole to melt this year?

and GT...don't forget to mention that this was during a time of frequent El Nino's due to a largely positive PDO.....that has changed now....so it should be an interesting melt season...and the ice has thickened considerably according to the PIPS site.....so there seems to be ice levels comparable to 2006:



ice thickness
 
MOP. the phytoplankton bloom timing has changed gradually since 1996. This appearns to be in response to long-term increases in water teperature.

MOP, I have trouble keeping track of your position regarding climate change is it:

1. Climate change ain't happening.

2. Climate change is happening but it ain't anthropogenic.

3. Climate change is happening and man's at leat partially to blame but the changes are actually good.

texasflag.gif
 
The climate has been in a state of constant change since the Earth was formed some 4.5 billion years ago. So, of course the climate is changing. What would be especially noteworthy is if it ever stopped changing.
 
IF we're intelligent enough to call BS to this GULLIBLE WARMING ********.

This thread is almost THREE years old and the NORTH POLE hasn't melted yet, but that hasn't slowed the tree hugger mental midgets from continuing their lie.
 
Gt wt, I agree with your critique of my post. The weak spot in the cloud of scientists that you refer to is that the percentage of the observed rise in temperatures that can be attributed to man-made causes is unknowable. I made up 20% completely off the top of my head, but based on intuition about the forces involved generally. What percentage does your gut tell you? Do you think 90% of the observed rise in temperatures is man-made? If so, you get into some time-tracking problems, I think, since if it was that immediately responsive to the last few decades, it wouldn't have flattened. Anyway, that's a highly weak spot in the analysis.

As for future effects, I readily admit I am no expert, but I doubt it is a very precise prediction science. There are so many factors. Won't food production be better? Won't certain types of productivity go up? I don't know. Would you place the bad effects to good at 4:1? 6:1?

These unknowable factors make it hard to apprehend the situation. I do stand by my overall point, which is that the amount of future temperature rise or fall that is likely to be affected by our current policy is very small. Our approach should be to make a reasonable policy with the actual likely range of effect in mind, not a false impression of what is likely to happen.

P.S. I know that technically, data is a plural. By far, though, most people use data to mean a "set" of data, thus referring to it as a singular. If it makes you feel better, I do still use "whom" and the subjunctive case.
 
Interesting like Paso. I know some posters on here would like to tell you that Anarctic ice is on the rise and basically counterbalancing if you will the ice lost in the arctic region. But the data and this new study just does not show this to be true. It is melting and apparently the melting is accelerating rapidly.
 
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