North pole to melt this year?

Maybe you need to read again the OP's article before claiming anyone a fool. Speaking of fools, why can I never find em when the betting begins? Please note: they were saying it would melt during the summer of 2008. Did it or not?

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
paso, in this context "could" is not a tricky word at all. you have 2 main reasons for the use of this word. one is to invoke fear and shock at a claim that was pure malarkey to begin with. the other is to cover the butt of the person/persons making the ridiculous/embarrassing claim. either way, the claim was and is absurd and as with countless other such shock claims and absurd attempts at trying to link some random event to man's use of CO2, shown to be so.

Some other examples include, but are not limited to:

1. more frequent and more intense hurricanes (this has been utterly false as well)
2. an ever increasing rate of rise of the oceans
3. more frequent tornadoes
4. less Northern Hemisphere snow (we have had some of the most snowy NH winters on record in the past 6 years)
5. A consistent .2 Celsius/decade rise in the global temperature
 
more studies rolling in suggesting that the sun's role in climate change has been more than advertised. this is getting very interesting indeed, particularly because we appear to be headed for a prolonged solar minimum according to just about every solar scientists (including those at NASA and those who are dogmatically committed to AGW).
 
since this is the thread of record for all things AGW/Climate Change related….

New Norwegian paper credits sun with 50% of warming we have experienced. Keep in mind, even according to alarmists we have only seen about 0.8 Celsius warming since 1850. This study suggests that around half of that (but at least 25%) of that was caused by variations in the sun. This study was done by several Norwegian scientists. If they are correct, then all that is left to blame on man (and that's if you want to credit man with ALL that is left) is around 0.4 Celsius warming in 160 years even though we were coming out of the Little Ice Age. Remind me why we should all be alarmed and spending billions on this issue again?

Norwegian paper finds that 56% of warming is due to sun's variations...
 
so is the North Pole going to be ice free this summer?
blush.gif
 
My graph? I am pretty sure that it goes to 30 with the last listed day being the 26th.

I am not sure what you mean by "theory" mop. I think the arctic is melting somewhat faster than the IPCC models projected because they were too conservative. As for why it melts a lot in a single year, a part of it is the thinner ice, a part is warmer temperatures, and a part is wind. It is just one more sign of our warming planet.

I actually do not like the % ice covered standard measurement anyway and would prefer that it be volume (although the science is imperfect for this). IMO volume and trend are all that matter and an individual year, while perhaps shocking, is not important in and of itself. The volume and trend are very disturbing.
 
I am curious because the assumption is that it is melting due to warmth but the studies I have glanced at (I say "glanced" deliberately because I tend to read the abstracts and the conclusions) suggest it is mostly cyclical in nature due to wind and to the Arctic Oscillation which greatly affects the winds. It is hard to find evidence suggesting that it is due to warming and frankly, considering the world has warmed up on average by less than 1 degree centigrade in the past 150 years, it is hard to put much stock in the idea that warmth is causing the reduction. Of course I realize that it may be that most of the global warmth is centered on the Arctic so that the Arctic experiences much more warming, but I would be curious to see some studies that suggest this.

I agree with you on volume. It is unfortunate that we don't have great data for that.
 
The models all project that the warming will be most intense at the north pole. I do not understand why this is the case, but I am relatively certain it is being proven true (I think the temperatures at the north pole have gone up far more than 1 degree). The heat being retained by the earth also is primarily being retained by the ocean and it is an enormous amount of heat. The ice melts from above and below. I know in Antarctica the ice is melting from below.
 
actually, lack of thermometers in the Arctic make it difficult to buttress your claim. it may be the case that it is warming more there, but there is some reason to question the causation of the warming. I am also curious as to why the ocean is rising so slowly if we are indeed experiencing melting in the Antarctic as you seem convinced. The rise of the ocean seems to have been fairly consistent for a century which doesn't appear, prima facie, to fit the scenarios you are describing. I understand that Arctic melt off would not raise the oceans, but what about the supposed melting in Greenland, in the Antarctica and in mountains around the world?
 
I saw this quote earlier today and it reminded me of this thread:

Settled science: Everyplace to be hit by climate change harder than everyplace else
pirate.gif
 
"This is what global warming looks like at the regional or personal level. The extra heat increases the odds of worse heat waves, droughts, storms and wildfire. This is certainly what I and many other climate scientists have been warning about."
-- Jonathan Overpeck, UAz professor of geoscience and atmospheric science


"We're having some hot weather. Get over it."
-- George Will
 
Can someone let me know if the science has improved in this thread? Or is it akin to supporting creationism over evolution?

Are people still not accepting global climate change? Or have they at least evolved their argument to now not accepting its being caused by man?
 
Excellent questions

I am not sure what the answers are. The opponents of AGW present an ever shifting target sort of like Ali in Zaire.
 
If currently popular scientific theories and hypotheses about the Earth's historical climate are correct (and they very well may not be), then:

- From the time the Earth was formed (when it was purportedly covered with molten lava) until now, the Earth has cooled.
- Around 650 million years ago, during the "Snowball Earth" period, the Earth was believed to have been covered in ice from pole to pole. Since that time, the Earth has warmed.
- During the time of the dinosaurs, which spanned around 180 million years until about 65 million years ago, temperatures were largely warmer. So, since that time, the Earth has cooled.
- Since the last ice age (around 12-20 thousand years ago), the Earth has warmed.
- Since the Medieval Warming Period (around 800–1300 AD), the Earth has cooled.
- Since the mini-ice age (around 1350-1850 AD), the Earth has warmed.
- Since around 1995, the Earth has cooled a little bit or at worst leveled off.

So, if you want to answer the question: Is the Earth cooling or warming, you first have to pick a starting point from where you are going to start your measurement.

Which starting point do you pick? Based on that, has the Earth warmed or cooled? Because either answer could be correct depending on when you start your measurement.
 
My point has to do with the science involved. How the respective parties use the available data and information, what they chose to acknowledge and not acknowledge.

The outlook by some is driven primarily by their evangelical religious beliefs, not by science.

As I recall, the anti-global warming crowd (or global climate change crowd) shares some characteristics with the creationist group: many are right-wing evangelicals. This group has never been known for their embrace of scientific knowledge. So... if person X is telling me that Satan was responsible for placing dinosaur bones in the earth to test man's faith, and if the same person X (not saying it's you, mop) is now telling me that global warming is not real (or that an ice pack isn't diminishing) I have to question the scientific credibility of person X. Your views aren't driven by data. They are driven by religion and politics.
 
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