PDA

View Full Version : Arctic Ice is Going Fast--Really Fast



Terran
02-May-2007, 01:29 PM
This showed up in a little blurb in the back of the Washington Post today....


The Arctic ice cap is melting much faster than expected and is now about 30 years ahead of predictions made by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.S. expert said yesterday.
This means the ocean at the top of the world could be free or nearly free of summer ice by 2020, three decades sooner than the global panel’s gloomiest forecast of 2050.
No ice on the Arctic Ocean during summer would be a major spur to global warming, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado.
Scambos and co-authors of the study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used satellite data and visual confirmation of Arctic ice to reach their conclusions, a far different picture than that obtained from computer models used by the scientists of the international panel.
He discounted the notion that natural climate cycles are causing the sharp warming trend in the Arctic.


Heres a similiar article posted on some blog with more information from Scambo.


-Arctic ice cap melting 30 years ahead of forecast-

The Arctic ice cap is melting much faster than expected and is now about 30 years ahead of predictions made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.S. ice expert said on Tuesday.

This means the ocean at the top of the world could be free or nearly free of summer ice by 2020, three decades sooner than the global panel's gloomiest forecast of 2050.

No ice on the Arctic Ocean during summer would be a major spur to global warming, said Ted Scambos, a glaciologist at the National Snow and Ice Center in Colorado.

"Right now ... the Arctic helps keep the Earth cool," Scambos said in a telephone interview. "Without that Arctic ice, or with much less of it, the Earth will warm much faster."

That is because the ice reflects light and heat; when it is gone, the much darker land or sea will absorb more light and heat, making it more difficult for the planet to cool down, even in winter, he said.

Scambos and co-authors of the study, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, used satellite data and visual confirmation of Arctic ice to reach their conclusions, a far different picture than that obtained from computer models used by the scientists of the intergovernmental panel.

"The IPCC report was very careful, very thorough and cautious, so they erred on the side of what would certainly occur as opposed to what might occur," Scambos said in a telephone interview.

ICE-FREE SUMMER

The wide possibility of what might occur included a much later melt up north, or a much earlier one, Scambos said.

"It appears we're on pace about 30 years earlier than expected to reach a state where we don't have sea ice or at least not very much in late summer in the Arctic Ocean," he said.

He discounted the notion that the sharp warming trend in the Arctic might be due to natural climate cycles. "There aren't many periods in history that are this dramatic in terms of natural variability," Scambos said.

He said he had no doubt that this was caused in large part by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which he said was the only thing capable of changing Earth on such a large scale over so many latitudes.

Asked what could fix the problem -- the topic of a new report by the intergovernmental panel to be released on Friday in Bangkok -- Scambos said a large volcanic eruption might hold Arctic ice melting at bay for a few years.

But he saw a continued warm-up as inevitable in the coming decades.

"Long-term and for the next 50 years, I think even the new report will agree that we're in for quite a bit of warming," Scambos said.

"We just barely now, I think, have enough time and enough collective will to be able to get through this century in good shape, but it means we have to start acting now and in a big way."
http://my-dreamtime.blogspot.com/2007/05/no-more-time-to-squander13-years.html

Bongholio
02-May-2007, 02:07 PM
shows how much they know

Terran
02-May-2007, 02:42 PM
Like Scambo said in the second article....


"The IPCC report was very careful, very thorough and cautious, so they erred on the side of what would certainly occur as opposed to what might occur," Scambos said in a telephone interview.

So they erred on predicting a more optimistic slower scenario....turns out it might be worse...lol...

Bongholio
02-May-2007, 02:58 PM
Dey aihnt ebber gonna feeega eet owt
(west indies represent!) lol

_liam_
02-May-2007, 05:49 PM
cool!

DVW5150
02-May-2007, 05:56 PM
Earth is sick of human beings...
Sorry mankind, time for a swim.
I guess its better than being demolished for a hyper-space bypass.
Wait, don't forget your towel.

Tricky
02-May-2007, 06:12 PM
OooOOOOooooOOOohhhh *shakes in boots* :p

fartpants
02-May-2007, 07:31 PM
DONT PANIC ...:lol: :lol: :lol:

Danny
02-May-2007, 10:14 PM
y'know if the ice does melt and the oceans rise and the north becomes a much more hospitible land mass, do you think refugees from places then below the sea would all move there adn get along, or would there be some war for who got first dibs on the area?

MikePizzoff
02-May-2007, 10:31 PM
Waterworld starring Kevin Costner

Cody
02-May-2007, 10:52 PM
Ill be dead by then..ill try not to polute for my kids sake

Terran
03-May-2007, 12:27 AM
Ill be dead by then..ill try not to polute for my kids sake

You wont be dead in 30 years.....or will you?

Danny
03-May-2007, 12:46 AM
brr...ill be 49 then, im imagining a fat guy with a beardand a pony tail:lol:

Cody
03-May-2007, 01:13 AM
time to invest in high altitude land

Danny
03-May-2007, 01:28 AM
wierd thing is i saw a projection thing and basically the west side of england is gonna be the portion that mostly goes under, which stadns to reason being theres a bigass ocean on that side, but were i live will actually be near the coast then, if not a few metes underwater, anyone to the left of nottingham and birmingham and heading up to scotland are cool, if your in wales ireland or the south west your screwed.
cant say about america but im sure it said when it happens floridas gonna be gone, goodbye disneyland:lol:

Cody
03-May-2007, 02:44 AM
noo...i live in florida :( hey but f*** disneyworld

MikePizzoff
03-May-2007, 06:35 AM
To quote Extreme Noise Terror...

Man is superior, man has the right
To destroy everything in his sight
He'll take the world and do as he will
And make this earth a deformed hell

Raping the earth and we don't seem to care
Soon there will be no life left here

Danny
03-May-2007, 01:35 PM
geez, kinda struggled to find a last line that rymed huh?:D

Neil
03-May-2007, 02:44 PM
Ummm... Given we're a reasonable way down the path to oblivion now, and only 30yrs away from drowning... Why haven't the see levels already risen?

I know many reports say they have/are, but there are also some out there suggesting (again) nothing unusual...

LouCipherr
03-May-2007, 03:09 PM
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e104/LouCipherr/FORUM%20PICS%202/globalwarmingisfun.gif


:p

fartpants
03-May-2007, 04:10 PM
couldn't agree more Lou...:lol: :lol: :lol:

Danny
03-May-2007, 04:41 PM
Ummm... Given we're a reasonable way down the path to oblivion now, and only 30yrs away from drowning... Why haven't the see levels already risen?

I know many reports say they have/are, but there are also some out there suggesting (again) nothing unusual...

uh neil, havent you seen the news reports about an entire small nation situated ona pininsula thats now gone the way of atlantis?, its been on the uk news for like the last two years on and off, and its not the only place. hell englands had worse flooding over the past 7 years than it ever has in recorded history, wed probably be in the same boat if it whrent for the fact that ,aside from the beaches britains edges are all 30 feet cliffs, so were jsut higher up and sinking slower:lol:

Neil
03-May-2007, 06:44 PM
uh neil, havent you seen the news reports about an entire small nation situated ona pininsula thats now gone the way of atlantis?, its been on the uk news for like the last two years on and off, and its not the only place. hell englands had worse flooding over the past 7 years than it ever has in recorded history, wed probably be in the same boat if it whrent for the fact that ,aside from the beaches britains edges are all 30 feet cliffs, so were jsut higher up and sinking slower:lol:

Supposedly the experts suggest the oceans have - over the past hundred years - gone up by a cm or two... Hardly enough to sink an island etc...

Ocean levels are rather hard to measure when everything is moving... ie: Land masses rise and fall etc...

LouCipherr
07-May-2007, 05:54 PM
Lets let the advocates of the GW "theory" do some talking:


"I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience." - Al Gore (May 24th, 2006 – The Washington Times)


"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." -Stephen Schneider (a leading advocate of the global warming theory, in an interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)


"In the United States...we have to first convince the American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real." -Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations


"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." -Tim Wirth, while U.S. Senator, Colorado. After a short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs he now serves as President, U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion "gift"


"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." -Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada recent quote from the Calgary Herald


Then, of course, we have the others:


"Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata." -Dr. William Gray (Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction, in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)


"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are." -Petr Chylek (Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia - commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting - Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)


"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming." -Dr. Richard S. Lindzen (leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT)


"Science should be both compelling and widely accepted before Federal regulations are promulgated." -Dr. David L. Lewis (27-year veteran of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and critic of the agency's departure from scientific rationale in favor of political agenda - in an interview for Nature Magazine, June 27, 1996)

____


So, it all boils down to (since none of us are scientists or climatoligists here), who would you believe? The advocates of the GW theory who freely admit to making stuff up to 'scare' the public into believing, or the level-headed people saying "take a realistic approach"?

MikePizzoff
07-May-2007, 06:17 PM
Even if there is no global warming at all... what's the harm in treating the earth a little better? I wouldn't mind being able to breath air that's a little (a lot) less poluted.

LouCipherr
07-May-2007, 08:09 PM
Even if there is no global warming at all... what's the harm in treating the earth a little better? I wouldn't mind being able to breath air that's a little (a lot) less poluted.

There's nothing wrong with it at all - but intentionally lying to the public about it (and, on top of it all, admitting to it) is not the right way to go about it. You run a huge chance that your target audience will turn on you.

Why not just tell the truth?

MinionZombie
07-May-2007, 09:54 PM
Indeed, why not tell the truth?

Also, I was reading an intriguing theory earlier today that in one respect greenhouse gasses or whatever (was skim reading with the TV on in the background :p) are handy as they they reflect the sun's rays away from us, which at a time of high solar activity (like right now) comes in handy...

Also, that biofuel crops are being put in the place of trees - so trees are being cut down to make way for biofuel! Not very nice to trees is it?!

Also, there was stuff about the thought of just whacking up trees, and part of the "flip side" to that idea involved decreased areas that can amass snow cover, which means less areas of snowy land to reflect the sun's rays again...which is interesting...

*goes and fetches article from today's paper*

*distracted by the awesome Volvic bottled water advert - TYRANASAURUS ALAN!! :)*

Yeah, it's on about all the gunk and stuff puffing out of factories and reflecting solar heating, which if you got shot of it, would increase the heat here on earth ... as well as cost hundreds of billions to do. :stunned:

Also, computer models relating to how pollution impacts on global warming are apparently years from being properly trustworthy ... so that's rather dodgy, and in a world where even a slight mistake in science can reap huge problems, I don't really wanna be barging the situation like it was just a bit of flat pack furniture. :rockbrow:

An interesting bit of info was correlations between increasing global termperatures and falling levels of pollution...interesting ... of course, the sun is in a cycle of high activity, so that doesn't help us out.

Basically, if only we had a big mirror thing to put into space to reflect changeable levels of the sun's rays. :) There is actually a group of people who are working on that plan, but it's at least 20 years away from being feasible apparently ... and even then it'd cost a f*ckload of dollah...

Then there's some examples of scientific bodging:

*Australia - to get shot of beatles eating sugar cane, the cane toad was introduced, but with no natural enemy, they bread like horny teenagers and Australia ended up with a new pest. :rolleyes:

*1930's - scared of toxic chemicals in fridges and stuff, scientists created CFCs ... that worked out didn't it? :p

*A Brazilian hydro-electric plant produced a lake choked with methane-belching vegetation which ended up creating triple the global warming effect that a normal power plant would have! :stunned::eek:

Science is far from perfect, so why do people treat the oft-peddled scientific response to climate change as gospel truth? The fact is, planes and cars and us being the main cause is a theory and nothing more, all the other theories are just that - theories. So why not explore all sides of the rubik's cube? :rockbrow: