The Arctic summer melt and what it means

[Texoz]

The LinkIn reply to:

---

---

---

---

 

[mop]

wow, glad you got this all figured out for us. I guess there is no debate about the causation or he history of the Arctic, not to mention the fact that the Antarctic has been growing because that article said we weren't allowed to talk about that.

By the way, there are peer-reviewed scientists who disagree with him about it having been 120,000 since the last "ice-free" Arctic. For instance, here is a paper published in the Quaternary Science Review in 2010 by a bunch of Scandinavian Scientists and European (Denmark, Sweden, Iceland, UK and Germany) which makes the following claim:

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

there there is also this:

Nature reports that there were waters between 1 and 2 degrees Celsius warmer in the Arctic from 50,000 to 12,000 years ago.

 

[Texoz]

Mop,
you and your ilk have conveniently ignored a warming world until it was too obvious to ignore.

you and your ilk have you've conveniently ignored a rapidly declining summer Arctic ice until it was too obvious too ignore.

The modus operandi of you and your ilk is very transparent at this point. It is to deny, deny, deny and hope that people get tired of talking about it, or it goes away. I wish climate change would go away, but it's a decade away (at most) from biting us in the arse in a bad way.

So, keep typing and speaking because the more you and your ilk type and speak, the more foolish you look. And it just serves as as reminder of how wrong your side of the argument has been for the last 2 decades.

 

[mop]

so your response is ideological rather than substantive? Perhaps you can understand why the public has stopped caring. Too much overstatement. Too much doom and glom. Too many failed predictions.

 

[omnipresent]

I'm not an ilk - but to this day, nobody has proven these latest warming trends to be anything other than normal, cyclical changes.

I know some will make fun or roll eyes (and, that's just fine by me) but, you can't blame man for the demise of the ice that once covered every part of the earth (some ice caps >1500 meters)

 

[mop]

well said omni. but don't you know? CO2 is a GHG and man is pumping tons of it into the atmosphere, therefore all warming is caused by man.

 

[pasotex]

the earth is flat too

stay away from the edge

 

[hornpharmd]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[Texoz]

In reply to:

---

---

 

[mop]

yeah, I mean just LOOK at how much the recent warming trend blows away the earlier trend from last century! it's incredible!!!

early 20th century trend versus late 20th century trend

 

[mop]

Texoz, you are using an incredibly simplistic understanding on a ridiculously complex problem. to simply say that "more CO2 means more heat" is the argument of, well as you said, a high school scientist. things aren't that simple as the earth has many thermostatic responses to such things. these are negative feedbacks. the only way CO2 is a big deal is if there are more positive feedbacks than negative ones. this is our argument, NOT that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

 

[Texoz]

mop, why don't you write the National Academy of Sciences and let them know your theory?

Maybe you're on to something, but I'm guessing NOT.

 

[mop]

e may be a new study in 6 months that actually makes your point. At this point though, that is not the case.

Actually, when you allow for groundwater extraction and thermal expansion and back those out of the 3 millimeters rise we have per year, there is precious little left to credit Antarctic melting with in terms of sea level rise. I am not sure if you have thought of it in those terms, but the simple fact is that the oceans are not rising very fast and we now know that something like 50% of that 3 millimeter rise is due to anthropogenic groundwater extraction, so that leaves between 1.5 millimeters and 2 millimeters left in terms of rise.

 

[Coelacanth]

"ilk" ?

Really?

 

[Crockett]

Not speaking out in favor of global warming, but there's a lot of interest in the Arctic Ocean/Greenland and other points north now more accessible for things like shipping, oil exploration and rare earth minerals recovery. Dallas Morning News had an interesting article on China's interest in the far north in the Sunday paper, though I don't find it online.