North pole to melt this year?

I use this as a meta thread on Climate change happenings and research. There have been a lot of facts and graphs over the years.

Prayer might help but I'm more interested in what has actually happened or is projected to happen whether Prayer has occurred, influenced, whatever.

That last graphical diagram I put up last night was stunning to me that the relatively huge inputs of sustainable energy has barely made a 3-5% blip in the overall energy usage globally. Oil, coal, natural gas are here to stay or if not there is going to be a lot of underserved areas in terms of energy needs if that graph is accurate.
 
zork said:
I use this as a meta thread on Climate change happenings and research. There have been a lot of facts and graphs over the years.

Prayer might help but I'm more interested in what has actually happened or is projected to happen whether Prayer has occurred, influenced, whatever.

That last graphical diagram I put up last night was stunning to me that the relatively huge inputs of sustainable energy has barely made a 3-5% blip in the overall energy usage globally. Oil, coal, natural gas are here to stay or if not there is going to be a lot of underserved areas in terms of energy needs if that graph is accurate.
Click to expand...

The price of those commodities at this point will surely make it economically beneficial to continue use fossil fuels.

3-5% of global energy usage isn't insignificant I'd argue.
 
the truth is, even with 2015's relatively high temperature, we are in an almost 19 year long slow down of global temperature rise. In fact, according to the satellites, 2015 was not the warmest year on record. What follows this El Niño will be a La Niña in all likelihood. When that happens we will most likely pass 20 years of now statistically significant warming, all during the longest dearth on record of large category 3, 4 and 5 hurricanes to make landfall in the US. Has the earth warmed? Sure. Has it warmed as was predicted by climate science? No.
 
Steinbeck said:
From my perspective, condescension works well on this board when people believe idiotic things. We're not allowed to do personal attacks -- at least directly. So we do it more indirectly, like you did.

I think it's a pretty damned important issue, and I think it's time to take the gloves off. Skeptics have had them off for a long time. Condescension is a two-way street.

I also think the word "hypocrite" is a good one when someone makes accusations of condescension in such a condescending way.

Yes, I'm condescending. But not enough to assume you're "old." (My five-year-old wants to be old!)
Click to expand...

Steinbeck, I am old. Never thought I would live to this long, not sure it is a good thing I cannot understand why anyone doubts that climate change is happening. A Good Nova episode on PBS about the Greenland Ice sheet, the Pederman glacier, last week. The scientist had evidence of the 10K warming period we are in and compare it to past warming periods. He was asked by the TV person why this could not be just a warning cycle like the past one his core sample showed. He replied that it was a good question. This one is different because of the rapid change in warming in the last 40 years and it was gaining speed rapidly, like falling off a cliff after being on a slope. He was a scientists thought and not a fossil fuel CEO, so what did he know. He is the one with an agenda, not the CEO.

I am old, and I agree with you. I have witnessed the change.
 
mop said:
Steinbeck, please notice in terms of the Antarctica that since records began being kept in 1979 the annual maximum has grown from 14 million square kilometers to a peak (yes peak) of over 16 million kilometers just this past winter.

now, let's get specific. you keep claiming that i am some sort of a Svengali trying to trick all the poor idiots (that's your implicit claim) on this board who aren't smart enough to see through my poor rhetoric. show me how this fact is misleading. show us how this is misrepresenting, in any way, the situation in the South Pole. do i have a bad source? do i have a misleading data piece? is this graph wrong for some reason i am not aware of? is this site i found some sort of right wing site that is just lying?

please clear this all up for us. we can take my facts one by one and see how you do since you refuse to give even one example of my misleading anyone in any way. yet you continue to malign my character and my motives.
Click to expand...

MOP, not trying to enter the disagreement, but your facts are in direct conflict with this.

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/quickfacts/iceshelves.html

I woudl be interested in why. I think you have a good collection of data in this area.
 
climate-change-agreement-cartoon-bok.jpg
 
BTW, Artic ice extent is as low as it has been in 20 years this season.

arctic_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2016_day_56_1981-2010.png


Putin must be taking advantage of the low diesel costs to run his melting ships full bore. (sarc)

here is the graph including global:

global_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2016_day_56_1981-2010.png
 
Last edited:
Buffett also provides a curious discussion on climate change, because he has "a proxy proposal regarding climate change to consider at this year’s annual meeting. The sponsor would like us to provide a report on the dangers that this change might present to our insurance operation and explain how we are responding to these threats."

This is what he says:

It seems highly likely to me that climate change poses a major problem for the planet. I say “highly likely” rather than “certain” because I have no scientific aptitude and remember well the dire predictions of most “experts” about Y2K. It would be foolish, however, for me or anyone to demand 100% proof of huge forthcoming damage to the world if that outcome seemed at all possible and if prompt action had even a small chance of thwarting the danger.​

This issue bears a similarity to Pascal’s Wager on the Existence of God. Pascal, it may be recalled, argued that if there were only a tiny probability that God truly existed, it made sense to behave as if He did because the rewards could be infinite whereas the lack of belief risked eternal misery. Likewise, if there is only a 1% chance the planet is heading toward a truly major disaster and delay means passing a point of no return, inaction now is foolhardy. Call this Noah’s Law: If an ark may be essential for survival, begin building it today, no matter how cloudless the skies appear.
Click to expand...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-...-key-highlights-berkshires-2015-annual-letter
Interesting stuff from Buffett, via zerohedge.com .
 
Here is some data to suggest that sea levels have been falling for last 6 years


Screenshot-2016-03-21-at-09.18.43-PM.png


Screenshot-2016-03-21-at-09.11.47-PM.png


Some scientists had previously predicted New York City would be underwater by now.

CXw8FQ6UMAA6kLt.png
 
So 8 years later and the North Pole still hasn't melted. Funny how the catastrophic but time-limited predictions by global warming "scientists" are always incorrect. Yet, the skeptics of man-made climate change makes are labeled as science deniers.
 
so a brief update on the recent months. We did indeed experience a "hottest year on record" according to the ground-based temperature data. Interestingly, neither of the Satellite based records show that 2015 was only the 4th or 5th hottest years on record. But let's say that the ground-based is correct. We spiked up to a new high during another super el nino like 1998. What was a "spike" was supposed to be the new normal by now according to the CMIP5 model projections. It will be interesting to see what happens next. In 1999 and 2000, after the 1998 Super El Niño passed, we went into a couple years of "cooling" before leveling out at a new level that was indeed higher than the previous decades. Will what was a spike last year become the "new normal" starting in 2018 or 2019?
It should be interesting to see.
In the mean time, we are still in the longest stretch of no major hurricanes to make landfall in the US in over a Century. Another way to say this is "the longest stretch on record" but that's because our records only go back to the late 1800's. Still, we constantly have to hear the same thing about Arctic ice even though we really only have records back to 1979 (so 100 years shorter than our hurricane data). But that's ok. I am fine with pointing out that 130 years is still a very short term "record."
Otherwise...Arctic Ice is very low for the annual max. The fact that we are still in an El Niño officially means this could be a very low year for summer ice. But I have learned to not read too much into winter maximums. There have been years that were quite high that I expected to give us higher summer minimums and there have been years which were quite low which I expected to see lower summer minimums. In both cases I have been wrong. I guess we will wait and see.

And yes...I am the original "Mop" but somehow lost access to my account. Not sure what happened.
 
oh thanks Dionysius! That was fast. I am back...feeling strong.
Shame that the Arctic only had 4,000,000 kilometers after this summer's melt. That's only 5.5 times larger than Texas. We are doooooomed!
 
Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.”

With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities, igniting a world-wide debate that continues today about the energy structure of the entire planet. President Obama’s environmental policies were predicated on similar models of rapid, high-cost warming. But the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have done—and to reconsider environmental policy accordingly.

Mr. Hansen’s testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions. He called Scenario A “business as usual,” as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and ’80s. This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018. Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988. Mr. Hansen called this outcome the “most plausible,” and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year. He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000.

Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.
Click to expand...
 
Texoz said:
If you actually understood what's going on, you'd worry now. That statement applies to anyone that doesn't know what "albedo effect" means.

The only thing that could possibly reverse the warming climate now is a large volcanic or cosmic event. Mitigating the CO2 emissions will have an effect, but it's going to be many decades before we see that.

Let's all be very clear about something. Aggressive predictions of global warming were estimating that this wasn't supposed to happen until the middle of this century. The more conservative ones, i.e. the IPCC report, estimated that it could happen by the end of this century.
Click to expand...
I am a only a chemical engineer, but I think I can understand the science and math. At least I can if you write really slowly and use small words.

There is now about 400 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. The baseline used by the global warming alarmists was 300 ppm. So the hysteria is due to the fact that the CO2 concentration has increased by 33 1/3% in only about 100 years, or 200 years or whatever the story is today. I accept that data as correct. The CO2 concentration in the air is easy to verify.

However, when I look at the difference in radiant heat absorption for 400 ppm, which can also be expressed as 0.04% versus 300 ppm or 0.03%, I find an increase in atmospheric temperature that is too small to reliably measure on a global scale. Yes I admit that CO2 will absorb more heat than N2 or O2, which make up over 99% of the atmosphere. However, there is not enough of it to make a difference that matters to anyone.

Another problem with global warming theory is that gas is invisible and is a very, very poor heat absorber. Yes, CO2 absorbs more heat than the other major components of the atmosphere on a molecular basis, it is still a really sucky heat absorber. If there is man made global warming, it is likely due to the increases in paved area over the last 100 years. Concrete, asphalt, and other stones are good at absorbing heat. You can tell this by stepping on the pavement with bare feet in the summer. When is the last time you got burned by hot air? Hopefully never, because otherwise you were in a fire.

So excuse me for my slowness. I'm not worried about CO2 in the atmosphere. I'm sure you and Al Gore will worry enough extra to take up my slack.
 
Texoz said:
If you actually understood what's going on, you'd worry now. That statement applies to anyone that doesn't know what "albedo effect" means.

The only thing that could possibly reverse the warming climate now is a large volcanic or cosmic event. Mitigating the CO2 emissions will have an effect, but it's going to be many decades before we see that.

Let's all be very clear about something. Aggressive predictions of global warming were estimating that this wasn't supposed to happen until the middle of this century. The more conservative ones, i.e. the IPCC report, estimated that it could happen by the end of this century.

That was the prediction only four years ago.

Is this starting to sink in yet for some of you?

To anyone that thinks this post is smug, I have this to say. STOP focusing on the messenger, get off your *** and do a little research. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of science and about 30 minutes of internet research could have come to the conclusion that the climate was sending out some subtle alarm bells over the last 10 years, i.e. 800-year-old coral reefs dying in the Carribean, glacial retreats accelerating, etc.

What has happened in the Arctic over the last two years isn't subtle. When Mop posted a few weeks ago that the Arctic ice had returned to normal I felt like correcting his statement at that time, but it's just a wasted effort for many of you. You won't believe anything is happening until it knocks on your door.
Click to expand...
One other thing; there have been predictions of the north pole completely melting since the 1990s. Al Gore's first movie claimed the pole would melt by 2012, at which point it would be too late to save us. Oh well.
 
bierce said:
The East Antarctica sheet has been roughly stable over the last 10 years. The West Antarctica sheet has been losing mass. Overall, Antarctica is losing ice.

The Link
Click to expand...
That's what the global warming scientific expedition to Antarctica thought when their ship got stuck in the ice in 2015 before they even made it to the station. Then the ice breaker that was to rescue them couldn't get to them. But don't worry. They were rescued by multiple helicopters and were able to safely abandon ship.

To paraphrase Bugs Bunny, what a bunch of maroons.
 
I'm with SN. It's hard to keep up with these things with family and work. Is this now part of the 18 month worlds end scenario or was it a precursor to the 12 year death and destruction of the world? Does this mean we have more than 18 months or 12 years to live? Not real sure how worried I should be.
 
One of my questions is, is the climate of Texas in 2019 any less livable than the one in 1899? What is life expectancy and mortality rate now vs. then?

You answer that and you know for sure.
 
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