Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789
Results 121 to 135 of 135

Thread: Northern blizzards linked to Arctic sea ice decline

  1. #121
    Senior Member Chiptox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    East Farms, PNW
    Age
    33
    Posts
    2,951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by C.Puffs View Post
    I think we need to fix our own (numerous) problems at home rather than use our taxpayers to try to save the world.
    Honestly I don't see that much of a problem here except that we keep trying to fix systemic socio-economic problems by burying them with cash. Everyone gets a payday is how we try to fix things. If we were to actually try to fix them correctly we would have a surplus. Plus, some poor bastard dying of malaria in Africa is more sympathetic than an alcoholic bum on the street here. Mosquito netting is a cheaper fix too.

  2. #122
    Senior Member Mastermind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Nevada USA
    Posts
    6,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chiptox View Post
    Honestly I don't see that much of a problem here except that we keep trying to fix systemic socio-economic problems by burying them with cash. Everyone gets a payday is how we try to fix things. If we were to actually try to fix them correctly we would have a surplus. Plus, some poor bastard dying of malaria in Africa is more sympathetic than an alcoholic bum on the street here. Mosquito netting is a cheaper fix too.
    Wow- that's profound- and accurate!

  3. #123
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,328

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by Rattfink View Post
    Polar bears a secialists. They need to become generalists, diversify their portfolio, etc.
    The species survived previous warming periods just fine, as they likely will this one.

  4. #124
    Breck Girl riderboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Owner/operator 1957 Hoosier self-propelled target changer
    Posts
    3,843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ought Six View Post
    The species survived previous warming periods just fine, as they likely will this one.
    Exactly, and at much warmer temperatures. And if they don't survive, well, that's part of how species evolve, adapt, or go extinct. For some reason, the idea that the Earth must ALWAYS look EXACTLY like it does now both in terms of climate and species diversity seems to be held as an inviolable Gospel. The geologic/climatologic and biological history of the Earth has been nothing of the kind. That's what allowed humans to evolve, and that's what's gonna kill us off someday. Mother Nature brought us into this world, and Mother Nature is going to take us out of it. That is, unless we nuke each other.

  5. #125
    Senior Member Mastermind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Nevada USA
    Posts
    6,306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by riderboy View Post
    Exactly, and at much warmer temperatures. And if they don't survive, well, that's part of how species evolve, adapt, or go extinct. For some reason, the idea that the Earth must ALWAYS look EXACTLY like it does now both in terms of climate and species diversity seems to be held as an inviolable Gospel. The geologic/climatologic and biological history of the Earth has been nothing of the kind. That's what allowed humans to evolve, and that's what's gonna kill us off someday. Mother Nature brought us into this world, and Mother Nature is going to take us out of it. That is, unless we nuke each other.
    You may have a valid point- in fact probably very valid. Nature is a Be-itcH! We talk about all the CO2 emissions humans put out. Yet, not a word about how much in volcanic emissions the natural earth puts out- far surpassing human kind's contribution over human's entire industrial lifetime. A few huge forest fires or a huge prarie fire can turn billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere- all at once. But, we get excited because of cow flatulence. Every living thing dies- the fish, the animals, the trees and grasses- all are carbon based and when their bodies decay, all their carbon returns to the oceans and the atmosphere. Think of the great oceans of carbon, oil and coal beneath the ground and seas. All of it was once living and all a part of this great eco-space ship we live in. The huge die-offs of life this planet has experienced- dont'ca know that smelled bad for a while? Yet, life persisted. so, the problem we are talking about is not a planetary or atmospheric one- it is entirely a people problem. We do not want to face up to the bare bones fact that it is us that is the problem- we are just too many and once that problem is faced- then you have to deal with the problem of what to do about it? And, that has a very simple answer. We have to reduce the number of humans taking this planet apart. Can nature do that for us or will we have to do it? We made the mess- now, the idiots among us, the fantasy dwellers, want us to do the absolute impossible- Save the whole planet! With windmills and silicone sun catchers? Not likely. No- the only thing we really can do to get things back in order is - (You fill in the blank, here) ___________. Yep. If you understand, then you said in the blank- "Reduce the number of humans alive and plundering!" And we know very well how to do that. But, the liberals, on the one hand they say- "All living things are to be saved- from baby squirrls to petunias." But, then those same liberals are the most hard core people saying "Murder human babies in the womb! Do it now!" And they also are all out for euthanizing the elderly and keeping murdering thugs out of prison and off death row! So, it's pretty obvious, they are not the ones with enough brains or control over their emotions to get the answer right.

    Here is the real answer- It's a two step; Item #1- Forced birth control for every living human on the planet- Item #2- kill every human who resists Item one!

    What did I just write!? did I really put that out there for everyone to read? Sure- But, as you all know, it's really what the control freaks are talking about in their bottom line. They just don't want to say it. Instead, they think by controlling the amount of energy each person can use and the amount of food each person can get, they will achieve the end result anyway. But, they probably suspect by now, they are running out of time. In another 25 years, those third and fourth worlders are going to be demanding- taking! - their fair share- they want cars and gasoline and huge flat screen TVs too- and all the electricity their little mud huts can take- and air conditioning, and fresh water and- well, everything you have, they will demand and in their billions, they will have it or die trying to get it.

    Obviously, they can not be allowed to have it. If they get it, everyone will die - and die horribly! But, if they keep grabbing at it, what the H are the advanced, techno-nations going to do about it? Pretty soon, I suspect, the Greenies will be pushed aside for the idiots they really are and the evil "Nazi" realists will take over (Or more likely, the "Greenies" will morph into the "Evil Nazis"- they are morally equipped for the role)- and when they do, I think the blank above will be properly filled out- in bold print with an exclamation mark! Ten years after that- problem solved! And the whole dirty, crazy business of being humans can start over again.

  6. #126
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    24,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chiptox View Post
    Honestly I don't see that much of a problem here except that we keep trying to fix systemic socio-economic problems by burying them with cash. Everyone gets a payday is how we try to fix things. If we were to actually try to fix them correctly we would have a surplus.
    Preaching to the choir.

  7. #127
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,328

    Arrow Clouds blamed for record ice melt in Greenland

    The 2012 summer witnessed the largest ice loss ever in Greenland since scientists started recording melt rates there in 1979, and new research indicates that clouds might be the cause.

    Charles Q. Choi, OurAmazingPlanet.com via The Christian Science Monitor, April 3, 2013

    [CENTER]
    [SIZE=1]Extent of surface melt over Greenlandís ice sheet on July 8, 2012
    (left) and July 12, 2012 (right) based on data from three satellites.
    (Light pink: probable melt, meaning at least one satellite showed
    melt; dark pink: melt, meaning two to three satellites
    [/SIZE] [/CENTER]


    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...t-in-Greenland

    The culprit behind the record-shattering level of ice melting in Greenland in 2012 may have been low, thin clouds, new research suggests.

    These novel findings, detailed in the April 4 issue of the journal Nature, may help answer climate mysteries elsewhere in the Arctic, the researchers said.

    If the sheet of ice covering Greenland were to completely melt, such destruction of 720,000 cubic miles (3 million cubic kilometers) of ice would raise global sea levels by 24 feet (7.3 meters). In summer 2012, Greenland saw an extraordinarily large amount of melting across nearly its entire ice sheet. In fact, it was the largest ice melt seen in Greenland since scientists began tracking melt rates there in 1979. Ice-core records suggest melting events so extreme have only happened once every 150 years or so over the past 4,000 years.

    "The July 2012 event was triggered by an influx of unusually warm air, but that was only one factor," said study researcher Dave Turner, a physical scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Severe Storms Laboratory. "We show that low-level clouds were instrumental in pushing temperatures up above freezing."

    Thin clouds

    Turner and his colleagues discovered the role these clouds played by analyzing temperature data from the ICECAPS experiment run at Summit Station atop the Greenland Ice Sheet at about 10,500 feet (3,200 m) above sea level. Melting occurred even all the way up there on July 11, 2012. [Images of Melt: Earth's Vanishing Ice]

    The idea that low clouds might help melt ice might seem mistaken at first, since they usually reflect solar energy back into space. (Cloudy days tend to be cooler than sunny ones.) However, the research team's computer models suggest these clouds can be both thin enough to allow sunlight to pass through to heat the surface and thick enough to trap thermal radiation emitted upward by the surface. (This thermal radiation is a form of light but comes in longer wavelengths than visible light and is invisible to the human eye. The Earth's surface absorbs the sun's rays and then re-emits this thermal radiation.)

    Climate models often underestimate the occurrence of these clouds, thus limiting their ability to predict Arctic climate change and other phenomena. This new research suggests this kind of cloud is present about 30 percent to 50 percent of the time over both Greenland and across the Arctic, said Ralf Bennartz, lead author of the study and an atmospheric physicist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

    More observations needed


    "A very narrow range of cloud thickness allows for amplification of surface warming," Bennartz told OurAmazingPlanet. "This shows how well we have to understand individual components of the climate system, such as clouds, in order to accurately understand the system as a whole."

    More observations are key to a better understanding of these components, he added.

    "We need to continue detailed observational studies at Summit Station in Greenland in order to better understand processes leading to melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet and help improve the representation of these processes in global climate models," Bennartz said.

  8. #128
    Breck Girl riderboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Owner/operator 1957 Hoosier self-propelled target changer
    Posts
    3,843

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ought six View Post
    the 2012 summer witnessed the largest ice loss ever in greenland since scientists started recording melt rates there in 1979, and new research indicates that clouds might be the cause.

    charles q. Choi, ouramazingplanet.com via the christian science monitor, april 3, 2013

    [CENTER]
    [SIZE=1]extent of surface melt over greenland’s ice sheet on july 8, 2012
    (left) and july 12, 2012 (right) based on data from three satellites.
    (light pink: Probable melt, meaning at least one satellite showed
    melt; dark pink: Melt, meaning two to three satellites
    [/SIZE] [/CENTER]


    http://www.csmonitor.com/science/201...t-in-greenland

    Blasphemer!!!! Jeez! They started to record melt rates in 1979??? Christ Almighty, that's not even the blink of an eye geologically.

  9. #129
    Senior Member Mastermind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Nevada USA
    Posts
    6,306

    Default

    (from o6^) "[*******#333333]If the [/COLOR]sheet of ice covering Greenland[*******#333333] were to completely melt, such destruction of 720,000 cubic miles (3 million cubic kilometers) of ice would [/COLOR]raise global sea levels[*******#333333] by 24 feet (7.3 meters). In summer 2012, Greenland saw an [/COLOR]extraordinarily large amount of melting[*******#333333] across nearly its entire ice sheet. In fact, it was the largest ice melt seen in Greenland since scientists began tracking melt rates there in 1979. Ice-core records suggest melting events so extreme have only happened once every 150 years or so over the past 4,000 years."

    So, it has happened in the past, naturally, without humans smoking the planet up, and it was just about due- since I doubt the scientists have been tracking the melt for much more than 150 years. So, nothing to get excited about. Yet.
    [/COLOR]

  10. #130
    How's that Hopey Changey thing workin'? C.Puffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Smooth as a porcupine.
    Posts
    24,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastermind View Post
    [*******#333333] So, nothing to get excited about. Yet.[/COLOR]
    "Never let a crisis go to waste."

  11. #131
    Senior Member Kaiser Prussotroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Failing art school, writing a book about invading Russia
    Posts
    1,992

    Default

    Sadly, I was suspended for hotlinking an image in this post, so I'll repost the original post without the image.

    [*******#333333] Originally Posted by riderboy
    There are scientists quoted with incredibly dire predictions, none of which came true. Not that I would doubt it, but do you think the media just makes up fictitious stories on climate science without sourcing them in some fashion?
    [/COLOR]
    [*******#333333]Quotes can be misconstrued, comments taken out of context and statements misinterpreted.[/COLOR]

    [*******#333333]Again, the ice-age scare of the 70's was entirely media based, the gulf-stream scare of the early 2000's was entirely media based, and many more. Seriously, newspapers are no scientific studies. There are only a couple of direct quotes from scientists, most of whom are not even climatologists. For instance, Carl Sagan. He had no more credentials in climatology than I have. The only "real" climatologist I could find was the last quote by Dr. David Barber.[/COLOR]

    [*******#333333]He said this: [/COLOR][*******#FF0000][FONT=Times New Roman]"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history],"[/FONT][/COLOR]

    [*******#333333]Now here comes the fun thing, the article itself mentions that this is specifically referring to "first year ice", i.e. ice that formed during the winter, not multiple year old ice.[/COLOR]
    [*******#333333]
    [*******#000000][FONT=arial]Firsthand observations and satellite images show that the immediate area around the geographic North Pole is now mostly annual, or first-year, ice—thin new ice that forms each year during the winter freeze.[/FONT][/COLOR]

    [/COLOR]
    [*******#333333]
    [*******#000000][FONT=arial]"While much of the first-year ice melts in the summer, not all of it does, so we can't be sure it will melt at the Pole," he said. "We also don't know what the winds will be like this summer, and they play an important role in determining just what parts of the Arctic Ocean are ice-free."[/FONT][/COLOR]

    [/COLOR]
    [*******#333333]
    [*******#000000][FONT=arial]Recent models suggest that the [/FONT][/COLOR]Arctic won't see its first completely ice-free summer until somewhere between 2013 and 2030[*******#000000][FONT=arial].[/FONT][/COLOR]

    [/COLOR]
    [*******#333333]Nobody ever suggested that the entire north-pole would be free of ice in 2008, they just spoke about the possibility, should the massive 2007 melting happen again, that the freshly frozen ice around the immediate north-pole could melt.[/COLOR]

    [*******#333333]This is what they were talking about, notice how the average thickness of 2008 ice is significantly lower, especially around the north-pole.[/COLOR]

  12. #132
    Senior Member Kaiser Prussotroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Failing art school, writing a book about invading Russia
    Posts
    1,992

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mastermind View Post
    You may have a valid point- in fact probably very valid. Nature is a Be-itcH! We talk about all the CO2 emissions humans put out. Yet, not a word about how much in volcanic emissions the natural earth puts out- far surpassing human kind's contribution over human's entire industrial lifetime. A few huge forest fires or a huge prarie fire can turn billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere- all at once. But, we get excited because of cow flatulence.
    You are aware that volcanoes emit roughly 0.3 billion tons of CO≤ while human emissions are around 29 billion tons a year? That's 1% of our emissions. Even the largest eruption in the last half century amounted to 0.2% of our emissions that year. Under-water eruptions don't actually contribute to atmospheric CO≤ that much as almost all of the CO≤ they emit is absorbed by the ocean.

    I won't adress the rest of your post as you went to crazy-land in the second half of your post.

    Once again Human emissions are over 100 times greater than all volcanic emissions combined.

  13. #133
    Senior Member DS73's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    just a big old cornfield
    Age
    41
    Posts
    1,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ought Six View Post
    The 2012 summer witnessed the largest ice loss ever in Greenland since scientists started recording melt rates there in 1979, and new research indicates that clouds might be the cause.

    Charles Q. Choi, OurAmazingPlanet.com via The Christian Science Monitor, April 3, 2013
    Since when The Christian Science Monitor is an expert in science actually?
    Greenland, sattelite measurements... Khhmm, I would write long, but it's irrelevant here. Clouds and measurements don't combine...

    Right quote:
    Arctic sea ice extent in March 2013 averaged 15.04 million square kilometers (5.81 million square miles). This is 710,000 kilometers (274,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average extent, and 610,000 square kilometers (236,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which happened in 2006. Continuing a trend in recent winters, ice extent was near or below average levels throughout most of the Arctic, with the exception of higher extent in the Bering Sea.
    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    Actually the ice levels are starting to recover: the process which will continue to the next decade...

  14. #134
    Senior Member Kaiser Prussotroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Failing art school, writing a book about invading Russia
    Posts
    1,992

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DS73 View Post
    Since when The Christian Science Monitor is an expert in science actually?
    Greenland, sattelite measurements... Khhmm, I would write long, but it's irrelevant here. Clouds and measurements don't combine...

    Right quote:


    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
    Actually the ice levels are starting to recover: the process which will continue to the next decade...
    Melt-rates =/= total ice-shield size

  15. #135
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,328

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by DS73 View Post
    Since when The Christian Science Monitor is an expert in science actually?
    Seriously ???

    It pays to read what is posted before responding to it. First, the CSM is not the source of the article. The source is OurAmazingPlanet.com. And second, science reporting mags are not "expert in science". They are reporters, not scientists. They are merely reporting on what actual scientific researchers, who are the experts, are doing. *>obvious<*

    If you had bothered to read the article (which you clearly did not), you would have seen this:
    "The July 2012 event was triggered by an influx of unusually warm air, but that was only one factor," said study researcher Dave Turner, a physical scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Severe Storms Laboratory. "We show that low-level clouds were instrumental in pushing temperatures up above freezing."
    The source is a NOAA research scientist talking about his study.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •