North pole to melt this year?

True and scary Paso. The studies from Overland at NOAA and Wang at University of Washingtion predict that the arctic will be nearly ice free in 3 to 4 decades. Other studies by other scientists now say possibly a decade. The question is "when" and not "if". And current studies are predicting much sooner than the 2007 IPCC report which predicted 2100.
__________________________________________________

I'm sure the arctic will freeze and thaw mutliple times over the next million years as it did over the previous millions of years.
 
I think your analogy would be better if an asteroid had in fact hit earth a few times before with no big affect on mankind.

Probably a stupid question, but the last time we had an essentially ice free arctic did the coast lines of the world disapear? Isnt there a photo of a russian sub at the north pole? Was that a hoax? I cant remember.
 
Paso, those are interesting numbers. I notice you only posted me to an economic scenario but not to what it would accomplish in terms of real world temperatures.

hornpharmd, you aren't describing a reality that is present in this thread at all. i ask questions, many time questions that have not at all been answered actually. in fact, i don't think paso has ever given me those numbers before and has still failed to give me the numbers which would tell us how much we need to reduce CO2 output to achieve what real world goal by 2100 (for instance). I continue to wait for that question (which i have asked quite a few times on quite a few threads actually) to be answered.
 
here is a great post by Joanne Nova about Sea Level rise. anything in here you disagree with Paso? (or anyone else for that matter?)

Global Sea Levels began rising long before Industrialization

jevrejeva-sea-levels-1700-1800-1900-2000-global-2.gif
 
How could I possibly dispute something from a writer in Australia? She does have a degree in molecular biology which makes her about as qualified as me (although I bet I had more hard science background in undergrad than she did).

Maybe a peer reviewed paper might help:

The Link
 
then there is this study out of Australia that first hit the news cycles about 5 days ago. It claims that in Austrailia the rate of sea level rise is likewise decelerating. Watson references the above study I linked to but also uses the gauges from Australia. The conclusion is that in Australia, the rate is decelerating. Having said that Watson does end with this thought:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Michtex, I find it amusing that whenever a new study comes out that calls into question the generally accepted orthodoxy on AGW, the first thing that AGW enthusiasts do is to find the comments by the scientists supporting AGW. This is almost an obligation to get a study published anyways these days, but beside that point it really has no bearing on the facts of the paper if a scientist still believes in AGW. the important question is what does the study itself say about the issue.

i found these quotes from your large block quotes to be quite telling indeed:

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
paso, as you know, we only have about 30 years of satellite record and for some reason only about 10 years of record are on the primary sea ice extent sites (JAXA, DMI). Coincidentally our Satellites came on record right when the PDO was switching from 30 years of a cool cycle into 30 years of warming. it is not surprising (or alarming) that we have watched the Arctic steadily decline for the 30 years from 1979 to 2007. The past 3 years have been unclear in terms of a trend (and not significant for their amount of time, although no doubt you would be declaring it VERY significant if it had continued to decline after 2007 rather than tick back up a bit).

so the DMI now has 2011 trending fairly drastically away from 2007's low year and it is approaching the rest of the pack fairly quickly. We will see if this trend continues (hard for me to imagine it will considering from how far down it is coming).

DMI

the JAXA (15%) has a similar trend showing up, but tends to be a few days behind the DMI (30%)

JAXA
 
by the way Paso….about 60 years ago in the late 40's (which would have been the end of a warm PDO cycle), we saw articles like the following hit our papers. look to the far left and read down about 3 paragraphs to see what was said about the North Pole in 1947.

Palm Beach Post February 8, 1947.
 
a new study out from the University of Copenhagen suggests that a "tipping point" in Arctic ice is unlikely and then huge chunks of time in the past 10,000 years the Arctic has had less than 50% of the ice it currently has.

another strike against alarmism i suppose:

University of Copenhagen
 
after a week of very little ice loss (and a major change in the graph), the ice took a rather dramatic drop yesterday.
 
The Palm Beach Post cite was incredibly interesting, only in small part for the ice issue. The editorial about Churchill and Palestine (pre-Israel) and the blurb about the Fed controlling borrowing to buy refrigerators, and the article about Sec. State Marshall taking his new appointment .... Very interesting.
 
but it does make the point that even during the past century there has been great variations in ice extent at the poles that we really know very little about. i think waiting before we declare "emergency" is important.
 
One of the more frustrating aspects of climate deniers is their endless games of rope-a-dope. They really never stand for anything other than an endless stream of false claims and when one false claim is disproved, they just go on to another.

You see this on all the climate change threads. You already can tell that when the polar ice melts, they will attribute it to some long term cycle or variability or some other nonsense that I am unable to fathom.

The earth is warming because its atmosphere retains more heat. This is pretty simple physics. Is the cycle and rate more complex than this? Sure. It still is pretty easy at the basic physics level.
 
CO2 is a heat-trapping gas, and humans are releasing more of it.

Not really sure how this statement has been argued over the last 20 years, but it has.

However, all you have to do is study the "debate" about smoking cigarettes during the 60s through 80s and you can get glimpse into the mindset and modus operandi.
 
vostok-ice-core.jpg


Look at the last several thousand years of data on that temperature graph. How many degrees did the temperature vary during this period and in how short a time span? Why did it vary that much?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top