North pole to melt this year?
- Thread starter hornpharmd
- Start date
VYfan, you're still missing the point.From the original article (dated Sept 2008) in the very first post on this thread:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September as global warming melts away Arctic sea ice, according to scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.
"We kind of have an informal betting pool going around in our center and that betting pool is 'does the North Pole melt out this summer?' and it may well," said the center's senior research scientist, Mark Serreze.
It's a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice, which was frozen in autumn, will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole, Serreze said."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
In he same article Serreze goes on to say:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If you talked to me or other scientists just a few years ago, we were saying that we might lose all or most of the summer sea ice cover by anywhere from 2050 to 2100," Serreze said. "Then, recently, we kind of revised those estimates, maybe as early as 2030. Now, there's people out there saying it might be even before that. So, things are happening pretty quick up there."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Understand now?
And from today's article,The Link
"I think, unfortunately, this is an example that points more to the worst-case scenario side of things," said Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University.
"There are a number of areas where in fact climate change seems to be proceeding faster and with a greater magnitude than what the models predicted," Mann told AFP.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The North Pole may be briefly ice-free by September as global warming melts away Arctic sea ice, according to scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.
"We kind of have an informal betting pool going around in our center and that betting pool is 'does the North Pole melt out this summer?' and it may well," said the center's senior research scientist, Mark Serreze.
It's a 50-50 bet that the thin Arctic sea ice, which was frozen in autumn, will completely melt away at the geographic North Pole, Serreze said."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
In he same article Serreze goes on to say:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"If you talked to me or other scientists just a few years ago, we were saying that we might lose all or most of the summer sea ice cover by anywhere from 2050 to 2100," Serreze said. "Then, recently, we kind of revised those estimates, maybe as early as 2030. Now, there's people out there saying it might be even before that. So, things are happening pretty quick up there."
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
Understand now?
And from today's article,The Link
"I think, unfortunately, this is an example that points more to the worst-case scenario side of things," said Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University.
"There are a number of areas where in fact climate change seems to be proceeding faster and with a greater magnitude than what the models predicted," Mann told AFP.
hey guys, i will readily concede that the arctic ice has indeed melted faster than predicted by the IPCC (though NOT faster than the predictions of the original article in this thread posted by a very convinced believer in AGW). In fact, I think the Arctic is one of the only areas where the IPCC predictions are coming true in a way that makes their point.
Sea Level Rise? Not so much (although still within the error bars but only because the bottom of those error bars includes the same speed we have had for the past 100 years)
Cyclone energy? Nope
Antarctic? Nope unless you focus on one sliver of it and emphasize it, but sea level rise makes the point that the Antarctic is not melting very fast.
More frequent Tornados? Nope
and we could go on and on and on.
But more importantly than those examples, even were they happening, is the fact that none of those can be clearly placed at the feet of CO2. instead we are told to trust the classic fallacy of correlation implies causation, even though there is no correlation in MANY of the predictions that have been made.
Furthermore, the ocean MDO's are switching and the AMO is set to switch in the next 3 years. The PDO has shifted and what we are now facing is a syncing of the major MDO's into a negative phase. So the verdict is still very much out.
So yeah, the arctic is melting for now and we finally get a lower year than 2007 after 5 years (4 years on this thread). The trend has always been downward for the past 30 years, but that was at the peak of the negative PDO and therefore ice was understandably at a local high. it was expected that the ice would shrink over the past 30 years. we have yet to test the natural variation theory. But regardless of that, we have also been exiting the LIA since long before CO2 could be blamed and the world has been thawing out.
Sea Level Rise? Not so much (although still within the error bars but only because the bottom of those error bars includes the same speed we have had for the past 100 years)
Cyclone energy? Nope
Antarctic? Nope unless you focus on one sliver of it and emphasize it, but sea level rise makes the point that the Antarctic is not melting very fast.
More frequent Tornados? Nope
and we could go on and on and on.
But more importantly than those examples, even were they happening, is the fact that none of those can be clearly placed at the feet of CO2. instead we are told to trust the classic fallacy of correlation implies causation, even though there is no correlation in MANY of the predictions that have been made.
Furthermore, the ocean MDO's are switching and the AMO is set to switch in the next 3 years. The PDO has shifted and what we are now facing is a syncing of the major MDO's into a negative phase. So the verdict is still very much out.
So yeah, the arctic is melting for now and we finally get a lower year than 2007 after 5 years (4 years on this thread). The trend has always been downward for the past 30 years, but that was at the peak of the negative PDO and therefore ice was understandably at a local high. it was expected that the ice would shrink over the past 30 years. we have yet to test the natural variation theory. But regardless of that, we have also been exiting the LIA since long before CO2 could be blamed and the world has been thawing out.
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
I recognize constantly changing ******** when I see it. I still have yet to see what you actually think. The original poster actually just linked an article indicating there was a possibility that the North Pole would be ice free in 2007. The article went on to (very accurately and truthfully) describe how rapidly the ice is melting at the pole and indicating it is likely to be ice free far faster than originally projected by the IPCC.
You have taken multiple, contradictory, and just flat out wrong positions on virtually every issue in this almost 100 page thread. If you would admit that CO2 retains heat and the earth is retaining more and more heat as a result of man's influence, this would be a start. It isn't happening.
You are Ali in Zaire playing rope-a-dope. It is irritating. For example, your flat out lie about temperatures remaining "flat" for 16 years. You know this is false. They have continued their upward trend for the past 16 years as I have repeatedly demonstrated. You also say this despite the continued melting trend of the arctic ice. How is this thermodynamically possible if temperatures are flat?
My personal favorite lie of your's is that the ice is going to "spring back" due to some change in circulation. You claimed some "mini trend" between 2007 and 2011which 2012 has utterly destroyed. The ice is going to be gone and it is going to be gone soon. And it is going to be our fault and the impact will be far reaching. And the worst part is that this is just the beginning.
My biggest frustration with you is that you don't learn from any of this. As a father of two, I don't mind my kids being wrong or making mistakes. It happens all the time. I do mind them being wrong more than once about the same thing. You get all of your information from Watts who is wrong about pretty much everything. Does this make you question him or his (lack of) methodology? Nope. You just keep on ticking like the Energizer Bunny from hell.
You have taken multiple, contradictory, and just flat out wrong positions on virtually every issue in this almost 100 page thread. If you would admit that CO2 retains heat and the earth is retaining more and more heat as a result of man's influence, this would be a start. It isn't happening.
You are Ali in Zaire playing rope-a-dope. It is irritating. For example, your flat out lie about temperatures remaining "flat" for 16 years. You know this is false. They have continued their upward trend for the past 16 years as I have repeatedly demonstrated. You also say this despite the continued melting trend of the arctic ice. How is this thermodynamically possible if temperatures are flat?
My personal favorite lie of your's is that the ice is going to "spring back" due to some change in circulation. You claimed some "mini trend" between 2007 and 2011which 2012 has utterly destroyed. The ice is going to be gone and it is going to be gone soon. And it is going to be our fault and the impact will be far reaching. And the worst part is that this is just the beginning.
My biggest frustration with you is that you don't learn from any of this. As a father of two, I don't mind my kids being wrong or making mistakes. It happens all the time. I do mind them being wrong more than once about the same thing. You get all of your information from Watts who is wrong about pretty much everything. Does this make you question him or his (lack of) methodology? Nope. You just keep on ticking like the Energizer Bunny from hell.
Paso, if you have yet to see what I really think, that is a personal problem. I have been incredibly forthcoming about my position. Your rant reveals a very insecure person in your position. The original poster claimed that according to the article the North Pole was going to melt, "all of it!" That was utterly and embarrassingly false. In the mean time, the Arctic has continued a downward trend that goes back 30 years. This overall trend probably goes back much further to a time when CO2 couldn't have possibly been involved. Ironically, if one were to go back 8,000 years we would see a RISE in Arctic Ice. But I admit that it has not recovered as I have expected it to. This year is a good indication that the trend is thoroughly downward. I consider this one of the main areas where IPCC predictions have been correct overall. Of course, the Antarctic is doing quite well, so that's at least noteworthy.
I have no problem granting the greenhouse property of CO2. My point has never been (not one time in this entire thread) that CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas. I readily concur that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. My point has always been that things are far more complicated than that. The fact that CO2 retains heat does not mean that the conversation is closed as you and Hornpharmd and Texoz have repeatedly said quite simplistically apart from any nuance whatsoever. This is a great perspective for an elementary science class or even a Jr. High science class, but it is silly for adults to engage in such simple reasoning. I use the example of turning on a blowdryer in the corner of a house (the bathroom). It is absurd to think that the house will now warm up monolithically and certainly as if there is noting else involved in the overall temperature of a house. Yet it is certainly true that (to paraphrase you and Texoz) "blowdryers are hot and there is one on and it is adding heat to the house." Is that a true statement? Sure! It just misses MANY other factors and variable which keep it from overwhelming the "climate" of the house. I think this analogue works well with the thermostatic properties of the earth.
Temperatures have indeed remained flat for almost 16 years now as anyone can see who is honest with themselves. If we go to 17 years or greater there is a slope and I readily admit that. The fact that we have seen a sudden stop in the rise of temperatures (something admitted by some of the very climate scientists you trust) is not controversial. It is just true. Once again, here is the link for those on this thread who are interested:
4 major global temperature indices graphed over the past 15.5 years
Notice how 2 have a very slight rise, one has a extremely slight descent and 1 is completely flat. This is not just my opinion, this is a graph. You went on for weeks and weeks trying to argue against this plain and obvious fact, but you failed to make your point. I know this is upsetting to you, but it is also the truth. I am not talking about the 20 year graph, it shows a rise. I am not talking about a 30 year graph, it shows a rise. I am talking about the 15 year graph which shows flat temperatures. Conflation of my point with some different point you want to make, doesn't make you right, it just means you are dodging the point. It is astounding that with all of the CO2 we have added in the past 50 years that we would suddenly take a break for 15 years. This doesn't bode well for the predictions to which you adhere.
I do love Watts because he keeps me abreast of much of what is going on in the world of Climate Science, but no, I do not only read Watts. I read many sites and enjoy them very much. There are actually a few others that I find even more helpful if not quite as fun to read.
In the past 5 years while we have been having this discussion, hurricanes have been shown to be decreasing in frequency and power (contrary to predictions that were even discussed on this thread), tornadoes have similarly become more infrequent, sea level rise has remained roughly constant and some studies even suggest that the rate of rise has slowed.
But your notion that the Arctic Ice is melting because of more warmth is even dubious. The Arctic ice melts for many reasons. Wind patterns are among the most impactful, but we also know that black carbon soot from Asia is a factor as are certain ocean currents which bring warmer waters farther north. In fact, the ambient temperature of the air isn't at all the only factor.
I have no problem granting the greenhouse property of CO2. My point has never been (not one time in this entire thread) that CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas. I readily concur that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. My point has always been that things are far more complicated than that. The fact that CO2 retains heat does not mean that the conversation is closed as you and Hornpharmd and Texoz have repeatedly said quite simplistically apart from any nuance whatsoever. This is a great perspective for an elementary science class or even a Jr. High science class, but it is silly for adults to engage in such simple reasoning. I use the example of turning on a blowdryer in the corner of a house (the bathroom). It is absurd to think that the house will now warm up monolithically and certainly as if there is noting else involved in the overall temperature of a house. Yet it is certainly true that (to paraphrase you and Texoz) "blowdryers are hot and there is one on and it is adding heat to the house." Is that a true statement? Sure! It just misses MANY other factors and variable which keep it from overwhelming the "climate" of the house. I think this analogue works well with the thermostatic properties of the earth.
Temperatures have indeed remained flat for almost 16 years now as anyone can see who is honest with themselves. If we go to 17 years or greater there is a slope and I readily admit that. The fact that we have seen a sudden stop in the rise of temperatures (something admitted by some of the very climate scientists you trust) is not controversial. It is just true. Once again, here is the link for those on this thread who are interested:
4 major global temperature indices graphed over the past 15.5 years
Notice how 2 have a very slight rise, one has a extremely slight descent and 1 is completely flat. This is not just my opinion, this is a graph. You went on for weeks and weeks trying to argue against this plain and obvious fact, but you failed to make your point. I know this is upsetting to you, but it is also the truth. I am not talking about the 20 year graph, it shows a rise. I am not talking about a 30 year graph, it shows a rise. I am talking about the 15 year graph which shows flat temperatures. Conflation of my point with some different point you want to make, doesn't make you right, it just means you are dodging the point. It is astounding that with all of the CO2 we have added in the past 50 years that we would suddenly take a break for 15 years. This doesn't bode well for the predictions to which you adhere.
I do love Watts because he keeps me abreast of much of what is going on in the world of Climate Science, but no, I do not only read Watts. I read many sites and enjoy them very much. There are actually a few others that I find even more helpful if not quite as fun to read.
In the past 5 years while we have been having this discussion, hurricanes have been shown to be decreasing in frequency and power (contrary to predictions that were even discussed on this thread), tornadoes have similarly become more infrequent, sea level rise has remained roughly constant and some studies even suggest that the rate of rise has slowed.
But your notion that the Arctic Ice is melting because of more warmth is even dubious. The Arctic ice melts for many reasons. Wind patterns are among the most impactful, but we also know that black carbon soot from Asia is a factor as are certain ocean currents which bring warmer waters farther north. In fact, the ambient temperature of the air isn't at all the only factor.
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
pasotex
2,500+ Posts
Why was arctic ice less then than now?
What meaning does this have in the context of the current melt off?
When was the last time the arctic was ice free in the summer?
What meaning does this have?
As far as temperature goes, you continue to cherry pick and not understand the word trend.
What meaning does this have in the context of the current melt off?
When was the last time the arctic was ice free in the summer?
What meaning does this have?
As far as temperature goes, you continue to cherry pick and not understand the word trend.
Oh and for the record, I did not read about that paper (can't read the actual paper as it is behind a paywall) on Watts (though Watts may have reported on it, I can't recall), I read it on another site I check 3 or 4 times per week.
Incidentally, there is a new paper out in the Journal of Geophysical Research (Volume 117) that suggests that water is a negative feedback rather than a positive one as is assumed by most (all?) IPCC climate models. This is just the sort of discoveries I expect to be shown over time as I believe the climate has a thermostatic response to greenhouse gases like CO2:
Is water a negative feedback contrary to expectations?
Incidentally, there is a new paper out in the Journal of Geophysical Research (Volume 117) that suggests that water is a negative feedback rather than a positive one as is assumed by most (all?) IPCC climate models. This is just the sort of discoveries I expect to be shown over time as I believe the climate has a thermostatic response to greenhouse gases like CO2:
Is water a negative feedback contrary to expectations?
Paso, I have said that the temperatures have been flat for the past 15.5 years. This is true. I have also mentioned that the larger trends have been positive and that goes back about 200 years. What was unexpected by climate scientists by in large was a 15 year hiatus in warming. Here is the 20th Century's two primary times of warming. Notice how the earlier warming period is virtually identical in slope and amplitude to the recent one yet the earlier one had only a fraction of the CO2 we have now:
1908-1943 VS 1971-2006 (Notice any similarities???) : )
1908-1943 VS 1971-2006 (Notice any similarities???) : )
Arctic summer ice now almost 50% of what it was 20 years ago.
The Link
It doesn't take a scientist to realize that an ice free Arctic summer will happen in the next 10 to 20 years unless some unforeseen climatic event occurs, i.e. large volcanic eruption.
This will be 50 to 70 years ahead of the worst case scenarios that were created by climatic models prior to 2007.
The Link
It doesn't take a scientist to realize that an ice free Arctic summer will happen in the next 10 to 20 years unless some unforeseen climatic event occurs, i.e. large volcanic eruption.
This will be 50 to 70 years ahead of the worst case scenarios that were created by climatic models prior to 2007.
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
hornpharmd
5,000+ Posts
Check out Table 1 from that link I provided:
1979-2000 Arctic minimum ice extent average = 6.7 M sq Km
1979-2010 Arctic minimum ice extent average - 6.14 M sq km
Each year since 2007, that it lists, had a minimum significantly below both of those averages. Recent years are dragging down the average from 1979. This is the trend. The highest minimum since 2007 is 2009 at 5.13. That is the only year above 5 M. It has gone down each year since 2009 as well. So you cannot even look at shorter 1 or 2 year trends and say something idiotic like "hey it looks like the trend is reversing itself". The data clearly shows what is happening and the continued escalation is faster than predicted.
1979-2000 Arctic minimum ice extent average = 6.7 M sq Km
1979-2010 Arctic minimum ice extent average - 6.14 M sq km
Each year since 2007, that it lists, had a minimum significantly below both of those averages. Recent years are dragging down the average from 1979. This is the trend. The highest minimum since 2007 is 2009 at 5.13. That is the only year above 5 M. It has gone down each year since 2009 as well. So you cannot even look at shorter 1 or 2 year trends and say something idiotic like "hey it looks like the trend is reversing itself". The data clearly shows what is happening and the continued escalation is faster than predicted.
as this is sort of a "permanent record" for all things climate change related on these boards, I thought I would post my most recent link:
Interesting. A new study out in Environmental Research letters again raises questions about the Sun and cloud formation as a major component of climate change. The results suggest there is much that we don't yet understand. This shouldn't surprise anyone, but perhaps it will for those who are convinced that we have virtually "conquered" all knowledge on global climate. Once again, we are reminded how precious little we know and how far we need to go before we have a comprehensive understanding of what all is entailed in the climate.
Environmental Research letters
Interesting. A new study out in Environmental Research letters again raises questions about the Sun and cloud formation as a major component of climate change. The results suggest there is much that we don't yet understand. This shouldn't surprise anyone, but perhaps it will for those who are convinced that we have virtually "conquered" all knowledge on global climate. Once again, we are reminded how precious little we know and how far we need to go before we have a comprehensive understanding of what all is entailed in the climate.
Environmental Research letters
Bevo Incognito
5,000+ Posts
well that was a ridiculous argument on several fronts. Firstly, John Nielsen=Gammon seems a fair guy but still comes down on the alarmist side so mentioning he was from a "conservative state" was propaganda. Secondly, they never explain which indices they used which claimed 2010 as the warmest year on record, but most of the global indices still claim 1998 as the warmest year on record. Regardless, considering we have been coming out of the Little Ice Age for 200 years and it has been 15 years since the last "warmest year on record" according to most indices, I would say we are long overdue for a new consensus "warmest year on record" but based on January and February, that prediction is still very much up in the air.
I do know that Central Europe is looking at their COLDEST March in a Century and contrary to AGW predictions circa 2005 Europe has had TONS of snow the past five winters. It should be an interesting year. Funny enough, about the only global warming prediction that HAS happened is the Arctic melt-off which has been fairly dramatic, but there is nothing that keeps that from being explained by natural variation so this is hardly a slam dunk for "anthropogenic" causation.
I wonder how the North east US and Central Europe are enjoying that global warming? ; ) The continent I am living on just had a very mild summer and are moving into an early winter.
I do know that Central Europe is looking at their COLDEST March in a Century and contrary to AGW predictions circa 2005 Europe has had TONS of snow the past five winters. It should be an interesting year. Funny enough, about the only global warming prediction that HAS happened is the Arctic melt-off which has been fairly dramatic, but there is nothing that keeps that from being explained by natural variation so this is hardly a slam dunk for "anthropogenic" causation.
I wonder how the North east US and Central Europe are enjoying that global warming? ; ) The continent I am living on just had a very mild summer and are moving into an early winter.
NEW: Pro Sports Forums
Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.
Pro Sports Forums
Pro Sports Forums
Recent Threads
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 577
- West Mall
-
Post Right Wing looniness here
- Started by Seattle Husker
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 603
- West Mall
