Arctic ocean warming up/ ice melting in unheard of temp's

[deeps]

Please keep an open mind when reading the report below, there's no need for alarm...

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone.

Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.

Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

Don't panic, all may not be as it seems...


eta I'll find the link and add it

Edited by deeps on Wednesday 3rd February 21:56

[deeps]

Hehe yes, no mention of CO2 emissions in the original report below though

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11...

[deeps]

nICE pics Sneijder, glad that's not my car

KVA, no sea level rise as it probably wasn't thought of back then, there being no associated taxes.

[deeps]

G_T said:

1. I think I'm correct in saying that it's accelerated from each subsquent measurement. An exponential rate of melting if you will.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/...

According to NASA's goddard institute's observations anyway. Obviously this reduces the "albedo" effect which in turn increases global temperature, that could go some way to explain the increase I suppose.

2. Don't confuse weather with climate. They are not the same thing. I should also point out that the weather in the southern hemisphere was the warmest recorded in many regions.

3. If you can cite a reference for that I'd like to see it because all the evidence I have read points to the contrary from a global perspective.

As you can see, summer arctic ice extent has increased by about 30% over the last couple of years.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent...

[deeps]

ewenm said:

G_T said:

I agree we need to adapt to the change, but put out the house fire before you decide to live in the loft surely?

To continue your analogy, I'd like to know what sort of fire extinguisher to use on this fire before attempting to control it.

I don't think he answered that one.

[deeps]

mybrainhurts said:

G_T said:

mybrainhurts said:

G_T said:

Is there no end to your paranoia?

I nominate this for Ironic Post Of The Century Award....

Ahh another witty one liner. Still makes a change from the rolling smiley faces or "we covered this in another thread responses.

Go on I'll bite, on what basis am I paranoid?

....Go, G_T

Please MBH, there's no need to post such stomach churning images.

Ps. Did G_T perhaps take his forum name from his god? Gore_True-believer?

Back to the paranoia question, G_T-b you accuse realists of exhibiting paranoia when they merely seek the truth through essential scepticism, yet at the same time you display immense illogical paranoia of the make believe catastrophic effects of a harmless trace gas, on the say so of a political/scientific self serving alliance that has shown little in the way of integrity, yet plenty in the way of corruption, falsifications and criminal activity. MMGW Theory is a dead theory walking as the majority can now plainly see, yet your support of the theory is unfloundering because of your gullible carbon dioxide paranoia.

[deeps]

zakelwe said:

The main problem with denouncing AGW though is that there is not yet an alternative that can be used to whack AGW people to hell and back.I look at the sun graphs above but they are not showing a correlation, so the mechanism is very interesting to me, whether it be AGW or other.

Andy

When we look at where we are (Earth - 3rd rock from the Sun) in the grand scheme of things, I think most of us would agree we're incredibly fortunate to have such a stable climate, where change is measured in terms of percentages of a degree over the course of decades or centuries. What I can't fathom is why some people would expect, again given what and where we physically are, to experience a totally static climate?

Personally I believe the predictions of a cooling climate due to a down turn in solar activity will be shown to be accurate over the coming decades, not only because of the science, but because it makes sound logical sense.

Human carbon dioxide emissions warming theory, on the other hand, I find absolutely ludicrous. A theory that demonises a trace gas that occurs 96% naturally and currently shows a negative correlation to temperature cannot be taken seriously as a run away global warming trigger, not only for all the reasons that we've covered hundreds of times in these threads, but because it makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Anyway, could you please explain what you mean by "alternative" and why there has to be one in your opinion?

[deeps]

ctallchris said:

4.5 degrees over a century is a much bigger problem logistically because it takes massive investment to adjust. This basically means those who do not have the resources to move their cities / rebuild infrastructure would be left with nothing.

You talk like you really believe man can control the climate, just like the politicians want you to believe.
Do you believe that if our climate cools by several degrees over the coming decades resulting in severe winters resembling the Dalton/Maunder periods, that man could simply burn more fossil fuels that may increase atmospheric CO2 by maybe 0.01% and have a magical and tremendously powerful effect of defeating nature itself by artificially warming our planet out of a mini iceage? If yes, you would also support the use of big engined 4x4's and tax incentives for running 'gas guzzlers', the slashing of fossil fuel tax whilst hiking tax on small engined and electric vehicles which are the new eco unfriendly.

ctallchris said:

could you imagine what would happen if large areas of london started to flood on a yearly basis? how long would it take the uk's economy / government to fix it? how much would it cost

If you build on a flood plain you will experience flooding. No suprise here.

Gov Article said:

Major floods, both from the Thames and its tributaries, have long been a part of London life. These have caused damage to homes and businesses and, tragically on some occasions, the loss of life. When a tidal surge caused the Thames and east coast to flood in 1953, three hundred people died. The response to this resulted in the most recent substantial improvements to London’s flood defences, including the Thames and Barking Barriers. 1,250,000 Londoners rely on these and other flood defences to keep their homes safe and homes and businesses estimated to be worth £80 billion are within the floodplain.

[deeps]

kerplunk said:

However study of the past shows the climate to be a precocious beast implying we poke it at our peril. 'Restoring a state of perfectness' as you put it would be ceasing to pull levers that drive changes to the climate to promote stability. 'The end product of these sacrifices' is reduced risk from the unpredictable effects of a changing climate

That sounds like a fairy tale to me.

Which "levers" do you suggest we should specifically cease pulling? Please provide proof of said "levers" powers to drive climate, I hope that's not asking too much?

[deeps]

Skodaku said:

zakelwe said:

There's been a gradual reduction in Arctic ice extent since satellite records began, accelerating since the late 1990's, but with a slight rebound since 2007 which was an exceptional year for ice loss.

Andy

Ah..........so it's all the fault of satellites, then. Makes sense. Satellites use rockets to launch. Rockets burn very hot.............. Simples.

Well that is on a par with the human carbon dioxide emissions theory.

[deeps]

Blue Meanie said:

Isn't the antarctic taking up whatever the loss is from the arctic? I was under the impression that was becuase the earth is doing it's tilty wobble thingy, so arctic may warm a bit, but antarctic cools a bit, or something?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/glo...

Arctic sea ice extent has gained about 25% during the summer melt period over the last few years, and apparently Antarctic land based ice is gaining too, which your Sea Ice graph wouldn't show.

[deeps]

groucho said:

G_T said:

Now the likes of TB, now there's a man who doesn't care. You should admire him, the high priest of bullst. Unphased by little matters like facts.

You really are a fking idiot. You could only call that of him if you had similar experience in the field, and you haven't.

Absolutely Groucho, G_T calls bullst on TB, yet all I have seen suggests the complete opposite. What a desperate unfounded attack to make, perhaps G_T would like to back up the accusation? G_T?

[deeps]

YAD061 said:

G_T said:

YAD061 said:

"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers"

By Ellen Goodman

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion...

I can even remember the banners held oloft by morons like this woman making the connection.

She actually just means in terms of denying history but I agree it's poor choice of words. Sensationalist writing I expect.

Fortunately I am not Ellen Goodman and I never made the comparison. So I will continue to use the word in the same way the dictionary says I can.

Hey, it's a free world, you are merely displaying spectacular niavety in not acknowledging the reason why 'denier' became the choice expression in a politically driven, media maniplulated multi billion dollar industry, why, it's even hinted at in the guide of persuasive marketing espoused by the main protagonists. Make the naysayers appear socially unacceptable.

That's about the size of it.

Heres a Number 10 website petition for anyone interested:

“ We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to stop describing members of the public who question the veracity of Anthropogenic Global Warming as 'climate change deniers'. ”

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Deniers/

[deeps]

Granted they don't achieve a great deal on the whole, but they do make people feel better having done at least something rather than sweet F all. The road pricing petition was a success because of the sheer number of people that bothered to sign. Apathy is the enemy.

[deeps]

groucho said:

Is he in government?

Apparently...

http://www.apathyparty08.com/

[deeps]

groucho said:

How much will it take before they concede? Jeez, there's more than enough now. What I find incomprehensible is why they want there to be MMGW.

They desperately need warming to occur. If there's no warming they will have to find another vehicle to drive their agenda forward - namely creating an anti-capitalist new world order and redistribution of wealth. Finding a new vehicle will be hard work, so they'll continue to demonise harmless carbon dioxide until they have found it.

Having said that, I personally wouldn't mind a bit of global warming as it's far more comfortable than global cooling for human existence, but obviously I'll get what I'm given.