Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 Next
Comments 55201 to 55250:
-
Bart Verheggen at 18:54 PM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
"Can someone please translate this into a few key languages and get this spread to as many blogs around the web as possible!? " A Dutch version is on my blog: http://klimaatverandering.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/waarom-arctisch-zee-ijs-niemand-koud-zou-moeten-laten/ -
johnm33 at 18:21 PM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
Tom Curtis @37 I dont' find your comment very reassuring, if the equilibrium is re-established over the time period you claim how do they 'breathe' in the meantime? https://sites.google.com/site/apocalypse4realmethane2012/home/2012-vs-2011-airs-ch4-359-hpa and clearly the [arctic] oceans warming is provoking a vast increase in methane release.[and not just in the ocean] If you have the time you should read the whole post i took the extract from and linked to, it raises many issues, has been recently added to, and assuming his profile is true has much relevent expertise. -
sandysandy at 16:51 PM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
BTW I don't understand the abbreviations and therefore can't follow the threads properly. Please enlighten me and refer to the whole words initially at least, TYVM. -
sandysandy at 16:26 PM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
If I get banned I will assume you're all climate change deniers! Joke. It's bank holiday here in the UK and it's 7.20 am. I fink the admins have gone to sleep so I will copy n paste ur comments and read them when I'm sober, I love all the viewpoints. Is there a page on 'ere where u can discuss general interaction of ecosystem in one place? -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 14:52 PM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
In response to suggestions that 'we' don't know about the arctic sea ice before satellites, it's pointed out that there were ships. Ships keep logs - and very good logs. NSIDC has some good compilations of Nordic ice edge from March through August for the period 1750-2002. It's not complete for obvious reasons, but if there is impenetrable ice down to a certain latitude then there's likely to be ice north of that latitude. Files are in different formats, even jpeg so you can visualise the edge. http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02169_nordic_sea_ice/ -
empirical_bayes at 12:29 PM on 27 August 2012Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
I am more pessimistic than ever that events, science, or argument will convince people to change. I think the best we can do is point out to The Patient, that they are Overweight, that they need to cut out the cigarette smoking and whiskey drinking, and they need more exercise. If they choose not to do so, it is Their Choice. The Hard Part is that Our Own Kids will suffer the consequences, too. I have no realistic answers. All human systems have limitations. The United States Constitution is ingenious, but why should we expect it itself hasn't limits? Maybe global challenges like climate change are just too tough for it to successfully solve. I am less concerned about predictions like extreme storms and droughts than I am about the nonlinear bifurcations in the climate system which may be possible, because we are operating in paleo-historically unprecedented parts of the state space. Basis? See http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/05/19/41233/barton-carbon-god/ -
Pete Dunkelberg at 11:43 AM on 27 August 2012Teaching Climate Change in Schools
Michael, thanks for this additional information. Of course I don't know anything about your students. It is almost routine though that people who try to present reality to those who don't want to hear it become frustrated by the hardcases - the ones who just smart off against science. Remember they aren't the whole class. Anyone who might be going into science needs badly to be disabused of the vile "grant $" argument. For their sake and for the bystanders I think I would respond quite firmly to this argument, and brush off persistence as absurd. How can anyone believing that also think she or he is learning science, or indeed that there is any science to be learned? What was that Latin phrase? Don't let the hardcases get you down. -
villabolo at 11:40 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
"A 2008 study found that a period of abrupt sea-ice loss could lead to rapid soil thaw, as far as 900 miles inland." Has anyone taken into consideration the fact that the quicker the permafrost warms, the higher the metabolic rate of the Methanogens becomes? With a higher metabolism there will be a higher rate of methane production. Would anyone know how much of an increase in methane production we'd get per degree of increasing soil temperature? Due to the lethargy of micro-organisms in the cold there should be an enormous increase in metabolism from, let's say, 40F soil to 60F soil. Another positive feedback loop? -
Riduna at 11:27 AM on 27 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Old Mole @86 My comments on over-pumping of ground water in the Central Valley is based on a report in Geophysical Research Letters (1), a report by the University of California-Irvine (2) and related links as well as an article in New Scientist (3). I note that your comment refers to the San Joaquin Valley only and, while I am not familiar with geography of the area, my understanding is that this constitutes only a part of the Central Valley. (1) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2010GL046442.shtml (2) http://www.uci.edu/features/2009/12/feature_centralvalleywater_091214.php (3) http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20927993.300-lettuce-is-sucking-californias-fruit-basket-dry.htmlModerator Response: [Sph] Hot-linked links. -
michael sweet at 11:08 AM on 27 August 2012Teaching Climate Change in Schools
Pete, The basic grant money argument is that thousands of scientists are all liars. This argument is made by people who do not listen to reason. What reasonable person would assert that thousands of people they have never met are all lying for money and keeping the conspiracy a complete perfect secret? These people can never be addressed with reason. It angers me that someone would say all scientists are no better than politicians or oil executives. They believe the oil executives at the same time. I have found it is a waste of my time to attempt to deal with this argument. In addition, I find that my students do not listen to someone they disagree with. They think everything is a political argument. They do not know what a fact is. 25% of people in the USA are unable to determine Obama was born in the USA. TV adds pelt them with "scientific" arguments for weight loss and other snake oil. They watch House solve "scientific" problems. Keep in mind that half of students in the USA do not believe in evolution (more people in the USA believe in ghosts than evolution). They are taught to question science by their pastors. We spend very little time in science classes teaching how scientists come to conclusions about new knowledge, most time is spent on material that is well known. My students are often impressed when they see the data. They seem to prefer little discussion so that they can reach their own conclusions. They usually tell me that they have never seen the data before, even though An Inconvenient Truth is shown in English. As any reader of SKS knows, the data speak very loudly. (An Inconvenient Truth is used as an example of how to make an argument). The Physics teacher no longer works at my school. I never found out exactly what his argument was. I think it was the "absorption is saturated" argument. -
Riduna at 10:52 AM on 27 August 2012Global Warming - A Health Warning
Old Mole @85 Thank you for your referenced material which I note records the number of days per annum when 8 hour exposure to O3 concentrations exceeding 80 ppb (0.08 ppm) anywhere in the South Coast Air Basin. Table 2 in the blog refers to the effects of O3 concentrations up to 300 ppb and is then followed by reference to the effects of concentrations in excess of 300 ppb concluding that it is reasonable to assume that prolonged or permanent exposure would be very serious, indeed fatal. The material you cite substantiates that view and the dangers of ozone to human health, including the observation that concentrations of 200 ppb or more pose a serious health risk. I note in comment 76 that in some major cities there has been a trend to reducing O3 emissions as a result of public policy aimed at reducing emission of its precursors. Thank you for confirming that this is the case in California. You point out that the population of Mexico City are exposed to smog for protracted periods. However Mexico City is located at 1,800 – 2,000 metres above sea level. At that elevation climate conditions are not conducive to release of sufficient VOC’s to convert NO to NO2 which, on exposure to sunlight, is converted to ozone. While smog can be very heavy, concentration of ozone is unlikely to reach toxic levels for more than short periods – at present. However Guangzhou and other Chinese cities are at or close to sea level and have very polluted air including quite high levels of NO which has the potential to be converted to NO2 by natural and human VOC emissions. For this reason – and the fact that smog is by itself injurious to public health – Chinese authorities have embarked on retrofitting scrubbers to reduce industrial pollutants entering the atmosphere. -
Tom Curtis at 10:35 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
johnm33 @34, I cannot help feel that you are buying trouble here. The upper ocean concentrations of various gasses maintain an equilibrium partial vapour pressure with the atmosphere on a very short (about one year) time scale, so that any "oxygen scrubbing" by methane bubbles would be quickly compensated for by increased absorption of oxygen by the ocean at the surface. Indeed, with greater exposed surface due to reduced sea ice cover, the return to equilibrium should be even quicker. There will be a reduction of dissolved oxygen as the planet warms, but that is because warmer water holds less gas. However, the amount of that reduction is, I believe, too small to be a significant threat to marine life. -
Pete Dunkelberg at 10:26 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
Michael Sweet @ n New threads pop up and die down quickly here, and you appear and vanish almost like a virtual particle. Anyway I left you a message in the teaching thread: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Teaching-Climate-Change-Schools.html -
David Lewis at 10:16 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
Take a look at the opening paragraph of the Toronto Changing Atmosphere: Implications for Global Security conference held in 1988. The conference statement is here. Scientists who attended explained that 95% of their colleagues would not hesitate to sign that. The first sentence: "Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war" The conference was a four day effort for 400 high level delegates assigned the task of coming up with that statement. What could 400 delegates from 40 countries agree the threat of climate change represented? I remember a back room conversation between Digby McClaren, then President of the Royal Society of Canada and a delegate I didn't recognize. McClaren cut the man off in the middle of his statement about how things might not be so bad. "What about the Vostok Core?" is all he said. He expressed this thought with feeling - he sounded like a navigator on a space ship addressing the captain who had just committed the ship to hit a star. No one stood to contest McClaren. With all due respect to those saying the latest data from the Arctic is so bad everyone should take it seriously and the world and civilization will change, I say, the same thing was said about this or that dataset back then. The Vostok core data should have been enough to convince civilization it needed to stabilize the composition of the atmosphere. But it didn't. If you went out into politics, back then, and tried to make a case that people should vote for people who would implemenet policy to stabilize the composition of the atmosphere and return it to the preindustrial you were regarded by most people as insane. This is what I did. I had my own little version of a slide show like Gore's and I would appear wherever I could find an audience. I felt then the way many are expressing themselves in the comments here now. It was obviously too late for civilization to save itself back then. What we faced back then was greater change than what the planet had experienced in going from an ice age to an interglacial only the change was further warming from an interglacial, and what was most worrying was the projected rate. This was going to go at a speed far faster than almost anything in the paleo record. You have to think about the asteroid hit that took out the dinosaurs when you wonder about change that was faster and you have to think that the climate change prospect we faced in 1988 was going to be more far reaching and much longer lasting. And especially what we faced then was a civilization so deeply committed to using fossil fuels it could not think straight. This is still what we face now. Every aspect of the situation is more grave today, but in essence, it is the same situation. So it can be faced. You can understand what is happening and still find power to act on any given day. So don't be so downhearted. My grandmother used to say that to me sometimes. So what if the latest data streaming in from the Arctic is bad news. By now what we want is the worst news possible. The main problem I see with the latest Arctic data is the news isn't bad enough. The morons are ignoring it. They're drooling over the vast region that is opening up where they're going to find more oil and gas. -
johnm33 at 10:09 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
I was looking around for info on another topic when i came across this blog which is the scariest scenario iv'e come across for a warming arctic ocean, a short extract Striping of Oxygen from the Oceans Another disquieting effect of methane release is related to what happens when you bubble a gas through a liquid. The surface of each bubble acts as a semi-permeable membrane. Gases diffuse across the surface of the bubble in proportion to the difference in their concentration on either side of the 'membrane'. In the case of a bubble of methane, the oxygen from the water diffuses into the bubble and is carried to the surface of the ocean. In other words, an extensive evolution of methane gas from the ocean bottom would scrub the oxygen out of the water. Methane which remains dissolved in the water reacts with the oxygen, depleting it and forming Carbon dioxide. Not only do you have a depletion of oxygen but also an acidification of the water from the Carbon dioxide. If this happens, all water breathing life, may die and the Arctic will become an anaerobic cess pool. This adds a further dimension. All the dead sea life, under anaerobic conditions, will also liberate methane as it breaks down not to mention oxides of nitrogen and sulphur. There is also the possibility that under deep ocean pressure, methane will dissolve in large amounts in the water and as currents bring this water closer to the surface, the methane may start to bubble out, causing an upwelling like an air lift, far from the original source of the methane. This will pull more methane rich water upwards to release its burden of methane suddenly into the atmosphere. http://mtkass.blogspot.co.nz/2008/07/arctic-melting-no-problem.html -
ranyl at 09:46 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
Although this ice melt is a worry, so was the Texas 2011 drought, incredible, as was the Russian drought, as was the March North American heatwave (records brocken by 20-30C), as was the Amazon drought 2010 and so on, so why should this make people less likely to withdraw from denial? Considering the lagged heating system the earth is and the extra energy imbalance the sea ice melt, NH early snow melt and Greenland Ice sheet albedo shift due to dark ice under the snow induce, how much more additional carbon emissions feels safe? Does 2C feel safe considering what is happening already? 1.5C, 1C? The quickest and easiest way to stop emissions to stop using power, or is that too much of a challenge? -
dana1981 at 08:45 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
John Russel @25 - great links, thanks. However, the 1996 Nature letter refers to Antarctic sea ice. I don't suppose you can find the article quoting Christy anywhere, or perhaps could scan your paper version for us? michael sweet @30 - thanks for that link too. I wonder if the St. Roch passage is the 'anecdotal evidence' Christy refers to. -
funglestrumpet at 08:42 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
Jeffrey Davis @ 27 "what exactly would it take to get politicians off their duffs?" Seeing as the politicians, media and large portions of the general public are effectively giving the finger to the scientific community and its opinions, how about a global day of scientific inaction? That might get some people to at least ask what the fuss is all about. It might even get some politicians interested, well, the ones who are not to be bought by campaign donations, anyway. -
Alec Cowan at 08:39 AM on 27 August 2012Students sprout creative communications on climate change Inside the Greenhouse
The video "El Verde Edited Final" has at least some parts in mock-Spanish. And I don't mean an excusable use of English indicative when Spanish subjunctive is essential, but the use of Spanglish and a certain fail to even look up terms in the dictionary, like the refrain "respecta a tu madre" which is ungrammatical, with a meaning closer to "regarding to your mother" than the intended "respect your mother". I consider that culturally insulting, as this is not an exception but the rule in the States. -
michael sweet at 07:41 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
The St. Roch, a Canadian ice breaker, made its passage of the North West Passage in 1943. This SKS post describes that passage. Some deniers claim that since the St. Roch was able to make the passage it means there was no ice. This is clearly not true and anyone who checks the written record can see that it is false. Obviously, Cristy does not care if it is true or not. This denier meme has not been used much lately, but was more popular a couple of years ago. -
jyyh at 06:17 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
(Continuing the numbering of points) 18. (containing likely fruitless original research) While it's pretty clear that seasonally ice-free arctic messes up the polar jet stream with all sorts of weather irregularities in the temperate zones, the effect further south is not that clear. one might think there would be summer time continental high pressure areas (as the lows are in the arctic) which gives rise to the wet oceans/dry continents -argument that has been referred in some scientific literature for a long time. No doubt the arctic clouds will come southwards but how far they'll get? These highs in turn might effect the routes of tropical storms so (comes to mind) eastward hurricanes in Atlantic might become the norm (could there be two jet streams still in NH but the other one is new and not polar?). With the extra energy in NH (via the albedo effect), will these consequent changes in weather patterns propagate even to the equator pushing the intertropical convergence zone elsewhere (and north or south, does it matter?) Will there be more doubled ITCZs than previously and what does that mean? Anyway it's pretty clear the extra energy finds its way to the southern hemisphere eventually (thermohaline circulation at last) and starts warming up the waters there too. In summary, it looks to me like the countdown to acceleration of GIS or WAIS -melt ends with the disappearance of a stable polar vortex/summer ice in NH. (gotta stop, seeing tropical storms in the British channel and that's not good for clear thinkin ;-)) jyyh @ +20 ASL -
BaerbelW at 05:52 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
Neven has now posted an extended version of this article on his Arctic Sea Ice Blog: Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold -
Jeffrey Davis at 05:38 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
Changing the thermohaline current is scary but unlikely. There are 3 main reason why we should be concerned with AGW: food, food, and food. Corn dies on the stalk when it's exposed to temps above 112. This summer it hit that and more in Kansas, the heart of the agricultural production in the US. And corn died. Pronto. The next bad heat wave will be worse. Soon, and for the rest of our lives, it will be much worse still. Not to play the Panic Card, but at this point, what exactly would it take to get politicians off their duffs? -
John Russell at 05:32 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
@Albatross You might find the links I provided in my comment, immediately above, useful for the Christy debunk. By 'historical times' I, of course, meant 'recorded history'. -
David Lewis at 05:31 AM on 27 August 2012Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
The thing about ozone was the main use of the offending chemicals was as a refrigerant. There was $1 worth of CFC in a refrigerator. Compare to the place fossil fuels have in the overall scheme of things. The other thing was the way scientific understanding evolved after the issue had been successfully relegated to a back burner by industry lobbying efforts. After an initial culture shock when Rowland discovered what was possible in 1973 and consumers turned away from spray bomb cans powered by substances that could destroy Earth's radiation shield, industry got things quieted down enough so that the fastest expanding use of CFCs in the 1980s was for use in foam hamburger containers. The general scientific understanding (with notable exceptions, i.e. Rowland, etc.) of the scientific community studying ozone depetion around 1986 was that the models were showing that it shouldn't be possible, yet, to observe that ozone had depleted anywhere, and, most thought, you couldn't observe that ozone had depleted anywhere. (Rowland kept wandering around shouting what about this, what about that). There was a general agreement that just doing nothing and allowing production of CFCs and the other chemicals to expand without limit would at some point pose a very serious problem. The debate drifted off.... Rowland kept saying there's a problem now. Hansen seems to have the role Rowland played in the ozone debate, in the climate debate now. You could be as depressed about the prospects for civilization over ozone depletion and why nothing was being done then as people who've read too many climate science papers are now. Then Farman published his observations of the Antarctic ozone hole. So suddenly, the general understanding went from nothing observable was happening yet to there's this hole in the ozone you could see from Mars. Everyone coalesced around the view that this is the sh*t and it is hitting the fan NOW. At some levels in the stratosphere all the ozone was gone. A reaction was suddenly triggered, it seemed, and poof. Everyone realized no one had a clue about the chemistry that was causing this. The word "hysteria" was applied to the scientific community by observers. Civilization received a shock. For a brief while. The combination, that the problem was basically trivial to solve, and this sudden shock rippling out from the scientists, got a political response that may yet prove inadequate, that nevertheless many point to as a precedent of success. (See Anderson's recent discovery that climate change may have changed the behaviour of thunderstorms causing them to inject water deeper into the stratosphere than it has been during the time civilization has been around, where it is liable to trigger exactly what has been going on over Antarctica all these years... Harvard Magazine article here) By trivial I mean it didn't amount to a hill of beans whether you kept on using $1 worth of chemicals in each refrigerator or you retooled to produce and use $4 per refrigerator or something like that. The US Senate passed a resolution 80 - 2 calling on Reagan to act. Reagan personally overruled the remaining Neanderthals in his Administration who were still arguing that nothing should be done, and the US backed beefing up the Montreal Protocol. Compare to the climate problem: replacing 80% or more of the energy source to civilization is a bit more daunting than paying $3 more for a fridge. And that doesn't address the GHGs coming from land use, food production, et. cetera. And we've become like drug addicts who need a bigger dose for less effect: the surprise that the great ice sheets are waking up, or the massive loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, didn't cause enough political action to see in the rising CO2 chart. You can still make an argument we don't have the equivalent of the ozone hole just yet. We need something like the US Southwest actually turns into a duplicate of the Sahara, or a Category 6 250 mph hurricane levels the Florida peninsula. If political action doesn't come after that.... These warnings that this or that is going to happen UNLESS just aren't the equivalent. And this is a real problem how far the disrespect for science now extends. You had real difficulty showing your face at the highest levels of civilization if your line was the scientists are all just making this up, back then. -
John Russell at 05:27 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
@Dave 123 The only "anecdotal or other evidence" I can find to back up Christy's assertion -- and I can find a reference to Lindzen saying the something similar -- is this letter to Nature in 1996. However, I can find loads to support the view that the melt we're witnessing is unprecedented in historical time frames. Try here, here and here. -
Dave123 at 05:18 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
You might want to update the Christy Crocks to include the allegation on arctic ice 1938-43. I sure didn't see it on the main page of quotes, and it was certainly new to me. Albatross' post was exactly what I was looking for. -
Albatross at 04:51 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
John @12, I share your feelings. That quote you provided is an unsubstantiated and blatantly false statement by Dr. Christy. We now have another Christy Crock to add to the long list. Dr. Christy is entitled to his own (misguided) opinions, but not his own facts. I have a pretty good idea what Christy is doing here, but the comments policy prevents me from being perfectly candid. I’ll let readers draw their own conclusions. By the "rest of us", Christy is in fact referring to certain fringe and contrarian elements such as himself who represent 2-3% of climate scientists. Christy's assertions are also at odds with those scientists who specialize in Arctic sea ice (e.g., Polyak et al. 2010; Walsh and Chapman 2001). To wit,
[Source]
As the above figure shows, Walsh and Chapman found no evidence whatsoever of a reduction in total Arctic sea ice in the thirties or forties that came even remotely close to the scary minima in total Arctic sea ice that we are now experiencing. Not to mention that previous minima (as found by Kinnard et al) were transient, what we are experiencing now is a systematic and accelerating downward trend in total Arctic sea ice at a time when temperatures over the northern high latitudes should be decreasing because of a reduction incoming solar radiation.
I will have more to write on this soon, Christy should be taken down hard for yet again making such blatantly false and unsubstantiated statements to the media. This is shameful, irresponsible and unprofessional behaviour for someone of his standing IMO.
-
Daniel Bailey at 04:07 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
RealClimate has just posted this update from NSIDC Arctic Sea ice Extent:
[Source]
Note the use of absolute extent. Shades of Brody, 2013 will need a taller graphic...
-
Dave123 at 03:38 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
Does anyone have any ready references to Christy's allegations about the arctic 1939-43? I'm not sure where I'd start looking and it helps to be prepared. ThanksModerator Response: [DB] There is a compendium of links under the Christy Crocks button on the left side of every SkS page. -
70rn at 03:36 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
@ sout # 10. It's a little hard to say, given the fairly noisy and weather driven nature of the sea ice minimum. However, given the increased melt rate (daily falls of more than 100 thousand have occurred regularly this month) and an extent already below 07's lowest; it'll be, at best, 600 K square kilometers less than the 2007 September average. As of Aug 26th, the current extent is roughly 4.05 M SqKm, and I expect that by September 01 that will have reached at least 3.7 - 3.8, looking at the daily figures provided by the IJIS (http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv). It's not improbable that the annual minimum will drop or below 3.5 M Km - given that most years a further 200 -300 K is lost in September itself. Thus a projected September average of 3.6 - 7 ish is at this stage hardly outlandish, and may yet prove a conservative estimate. For it to be even as high as 3.8 it would probably need to plateau by the end of the week, which doesn't seem likely at this stage. -
John Russell at 03:27 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
Just thinking about the 'opportunities' an ice-free Arctic presents: it's a bit like falling off a cliff and exclaiming, "At last! I've always wanted to fly!" What worries me most is that once the countries bordering the Arctic start exploiting their new territories, they'll come to think climate change is a net benefit and then become a force to resist emissions reduction. This really could create fierce new planetary divisions: the low versus the high latitudes. -
sandysandy at 03:21 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
Dear admin, I have just seen your reply, how is the albedo effect off-topic?! In the third paragraph it states '... the role Arctic sea ice plays as a reflector of solar energy', which is the albedo effect... Daniel, in my deleted post I did say I would appreciate feedback. Please explain where I am wrong as I have heard this amount used in more than one publication and although I found the figure mindblowing at first, it seems reasonable that it would take that much energy to heat up the land mass of Europe. ( Jonh Mashley, I am finding it difficult to find what the project actually is on the link that you have provided so could you please elaborate? I was thinking about geoengineering before the term was even coined, but i thought that the UN had ordered a halt on all geoengineering projects a couple of years ago? Admin, please bear with me, I'm not a scientist, nor a climate change denier, I want to learn and understand and am actually glad to speak to people who are knowledgeable in this area...Moderator Response: [DB] If you wish to pursue a discussion on desert albedo changes, please post a comment on the Skeptic Argument The albedo effect and global warming. This thread is about Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold -
JohnMashey at 03:01 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
For a modest (but possibly useful) Arctic geoengineering effort, see Ice911. Read carefully, including people involved, some of whom I see occasionally, including Leslie. Steve Schneider was an advisor before his death. -
John Mason at 02:36 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
Leake has a certain track-record along these lines, John. Due skepticism and all that, as in the final sentence of my post on Patrick Moore the other day. But the trouble is that people don't always think skeptically. -
Daniel Bailey at 02:34 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
"...it heats it up by trillions of degrees a day..."
You should rethink your phraseology used in this bit; as it stands it is very wrong...on many levels. -
sandysandy at 02:34 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
I agree with you John, some people always think about making a fast buck rather than ensuring that life as we know it, or just life, carries on on this planet. As shoyemore siad 'The Arctic Ice story, which will affect millions on the planet far more that these two, should be the science highlight of the year.' I would also like to clarify one of my points about the albedo effect: Dry sand has a higher effect than sand and less than snow. In the arctic, very little snow falls as it is usually too cold and there is very little wind to throw that snow around to maximise the effect. I say usually, because there has actually been more rain of late in the arctic, speeding up the melt. Interesting articles here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081107072003.htm -
R. Gates at 02:32 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
BaerbelW @ 6 - Excellent! Thank You... John Russell said: "When I heard some of the speakers talking on the live feed my jaw dropped. Talk was almost totally about the opportunities presented by an ice-free Arctic." And there's the heart of the matter. Many don't see the pending Dragon King regime change coming to the global climate that has begun in the Arctic. The are taking a business-as-usual approach, believing that nothing is about to change, and life will go on as it has, but now with "greater opportunity" for getting at the fossil fuels in the Arctic. This is akin to the Thanksgiving Turkey who has been well fed for many years prior to the day before Thanksgiving, and assumes this trend will continue forever. Of course, the Turkey's assumption would be wrong as that Turkey's Dragon King event is soon to hit. But This is a conservative mind-set. Not conservative in the political sense, but in the psychological sense that such a mind-set is always the last to even think that change could come and come swiftly. Think about how amazing it is that even just in the 2007 IPCC report, no thought was even given to the possibility of an ice-free Arctic by 2020-- yet that is entirely possible now, perhaps even probable. What should be happening right now are international efforts to prepare to figure out how we are going to feed 7+ billion humans if the NH weather (where the bulk of the food is grown) continues become more disrupted as described by Dr. Francis at Rutgers. And we haven't even begun to see true force of the methane releases that are inevitably coming. In short...this story of the dramatic loss of sea ice in the Arctic this year should be the top science story. -
John Russell at 02:01 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
Several things have depressed me in the last few days. First was the smashing of the sea ice extent record in grand style -- though in the last few weeks it became clear it was going to go. The next was the conference which began in Alaska, yesterday. When I heard some of the speakers talking on the live feed my jaw dropped. Talk was almost totally about the opportunities presented by an ice-free Arctic, from the development of oil, gas and mineral resources, to the increase in tourism and opening of new shipping routes. Hardly a word about negative consequences; just a few asides about how to manage 'change' sensitively. No climate change denial here! Then this morning I opened the Sunday Times to see an article about the sea loss by Jonathan Leake, their science correspondent. OK, it started well enough by providing graphs and quotes from key Arctic scientists and NGOs, but then ended with this blatant 'false balance' (taking up about 25% of the copy) ..."Some scientists are more cautious and point out that satellite imaging of the Arctic -- the main way of measuring coverage -- only began in 1978. One idea is that the icecap may shrink and grow naturally over decades. Such cycles are common in ocean science, so the recent melt may just be the first time we have monitored it. Professor John Christy director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said the Arctic had indeed warmed, but there was also anecdotal and other evidence suggesting similar melts from 1938-43 and on other occasions. "Climate change is a murky science", he said. "To some it's an easy answer to say it's due to extra green house gasses. To the rest of us, separating natural variability from human impacts remains a wicked problem."
My blood boils: "some say...", "...but to the rest of us...". Yeh, right, 'the rest of you' -- a tiny, tiny minority in denial. And that thought is left in the minds of the influential people who read, arguably, the UK's most prestigious Sunday paper. [Sorry I can't provide a link, it's behind a paywall]. -
sandysandy at 01:55 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
I posted 2 comments earlier and they've been deleted? Could an admin tell me what I should edit please, as I am new to the actual website but not new to your facebook posts. I think that I am making some good points and they are on-topic! I agree with Mustermann, the article doesn't even touch on the effects of the Atantic gyre which the Gulf stream is a part of. It runs on water temperature and density and if it halts it will throw Europe into an ice age as the Gulf stream part of the gyre takes water from West Africa underground (I believe) to the Med where it heats it up by trillions of degrees a day which in turn heats the land mass by 5 degrees which is why, even though we're on the same latitude as Russia or New York, we have a milder climate. This should mean that the earth will right herself on her own but I do think that there are things that we should be doing to help her along: Abort all plans to drill for oil in the arctic, it should be disturbed as little as possible and if there was a spill the hazardous conditions would make a clean-up extremely difficult, if possible at all because they would be digging very deep and the climate and isolated location would greatly hinder any clean-up. Almost all travel by boat should be banned or restricted, especially by those huge ice breakers and by those new fangled arctic tourists who are looking to do what very few people can afford to do. Whales from the Pacific along with a lot of other marine life and organisms are finding their way into the Atlantic and vice-versa. We've had Pacific whales here in European waters for the last couple of years. As species have evolved to adapt to their own climate they do not have any immunity to alien species. For example, algae from the Med has migrated to the Red Sea and is threatening its existence, it has also migrated to the Indian Ocean and we do not know of its effects yet nor that of other organisms... A possible solution: I have said for years that we should be spreading or spraying chalk on all parts of exposed earth in the arctic. Basically, for every inch of land that is exposed, it heats up the land a lot more than the parts covered by ice. It absorbs the sun's energy and dissipates it in the surrounding area which is speeding up the melt. Chalk would be an ideal material as it is non-toxic and it is plentiful. (-Snip-)Moderator Response:[DB] The earlier comments were moderated out due to exceeding the scope of the topic of this thread (a familiarity with this site's Comments Policy, also used on its FB page, is suggested).
In the interest of furthering discussion, those individual portions of this comment also fitting that description were moderated out.
It is left as an exercise to readership to address the other remaining portions of this comment.
-
kampmannpeine at 01:54 AM on 27 August 2012Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
The article compares the Ozone hole issue with climate change and the common effort of mankind to reduce the ozone hole ... I had some time ago the same idea ... however: Ozone hole issue had an alternative: other material instead of the Ozone killer stuff to put into the "icebox" ... whereas Climate Change: I do not know an alternative for energy production at the Terawatt dimension ... We are working on alternative energy production - compared to the terawatt-issue still small ... and therefore it needs TIME ... Also: One thing on the long run to do (possibly): eliminate CO2 from flue gases of the big coal power plants by filtering. Now the only way to do that is by multistage filtering... (it would be nice to do that [the filtering] with normal air - but that is ineffective - at present) Then: what to do with the CO2? Sequestration is one possibility - we had this here at SKS. Another would be: algae growth in the neighbourhood of the power plant which however makes necessary areas about 34 km-squared for algae plants - who has that area except the U.S.? Another would be: the Sabatier Process making CH4 or Methanol (CH3OH) from CO2 with H2 from alternative energy sources ... But that is all far from reality at least compared to the Terawatt issue ... perhaps realized in 10 or 20 years ... However: we have to start ... Let us begin ... -
r.pauli at 01:45 AM on 27 August 2012Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
It is time to recall the terrific rant by Michael Tobis at http://init.planet3.org/2011/04/moshers-team.html A half dozen paragraphs down. A year an a half ago. It still holds up well. -
Miriam O'Brien (Sou) at 00:19 AM on 27 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
Tom @ #4, thanks for pointing out the difference between minimum and monthly average extent. I probably should have looked more closely. It's still dramatic though, isn't it, even if you lift it up a bit. Wonder what the September monthly average will end up being. -
Byron Smith at 22:25 PM on 26 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
I recently wrote a post on the various effects of a seasonally ice-free Arctic and came up with precisely the same nine as Neven just mentioned, so I feel pretty good about that. 1. Arctic ecosystem change/habitat loss 2. Arctic (human) communities culture/infrastructure loss 3. Albido change to global energy budget 4. Permafrost melt acceleration 5. Methane clathrates destabilisation 6. Greenland ice sheet melt acceleration 7. Geo-political tensions over Arctic resources 8. Exploitation of Arctic fossil hydrocarbon resources feedback 9. Complex effects on NH wind/weather patterns via polar jetstream effects. 10. I considered a tenth, namely, a further disruption to the global energy budget from the freeing of the latent heat energy that previously was being used to accomplish the phase transition of ice -> water, though my back of the envelope calculations suggest that this is a much smaller issue than albido change (I’d love to see some reputable work on this topic as I’m far from any kind of expert). Now that I think about it a little more, I can think of a further seven issues that neither Neven nor I mentioned. Some of these I’m very tentative about (esp ##15&16). 11. The release of persistent toxins and heavy metals that had become trapped in the ice. 12. The opening up of Arctic shipping routes which (a) reduces fuel needs of global shipping by cutting distances (negative feedback) but (b) brings more diesel fuel into the Arctic region, leaving black soot on glaciers (positive feedback). Not sure which is the larger effect. 13. Reconnection of marine ecosystems previously separated by ice with unpredictable ecosystem changes from invasive species. This is already occurring. 14. Opening up of Arctic fishing grounds to greater exploitation (and noise pollution). 15. Potential effects on thermohaline circulation. I haven’t seen any work on this related to seasonal sea ice loss, so I have no idea whether it is significant. 16. Potential effects on ocean acidification by increasing surface area for atmosphere-ocean gas exchange. Would this make any difference to ocean capacity to act as CO2 sink or rate of acidification? Maybe this is irrelevant. I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere and is just an idea that came to me. 17 . Highly visual and difficult to dispute sign of climate change, representing a potential tipping point in public awareness and concern. If we are waiting for that, however, before we make any serious efforts to slash emissions (esp if it doesn’t occur until 2030 or later), we’ll already have so much warming committed that we’ll pretty much be toast. At best, therefore, this point might consolidate public support for massive rapid emissions reductions already underway. -
jsam at 22:15 PM on 26 August 2012Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
One can only presume MIT do not decry Lindzen as (pick as many as apply): he has tenure, he has gone all emeritus, he attracts funding, he is amusing in the coffee room. The rest of MIT seems to be very climate aware: http://globalchange.mit.edu/ and http://cgcs.mit.edu/ and the more personal attacks on Kerry Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2012/01/mit-climate-scientists-wife-threatened-frenzy-hate.Moderator Response: [JH]Correction: Re your final reference, Kerry Emanuel, not Kerry Jones. -
OPatrick at 21:41 PM on 26 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
Current Arctic sea-ice extent is about 15% below the previous record for this date - for comparison this would be equivalent to the men's 100m record dropping down to approximately 8.18 seconds - but as far as I can see no significant mention of this in the main-stream media and most people are presumably blissfully unaware. -
shoyemore at 20:31 PM on 26 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
There have been two big science stories already this year that made front pages and led TV news bulletins: - the Higgs Boson announcement - the Curiousity Rover on Mars The Arctic Ice story, which will affect millions on the planet far more that these two, should be the science highlight of the year. But it isn't, not to the news media anyway. Even if Arctic Ice Extent falls below 4.0million km^2, as it seems bound to in the next two days, or even if it hits the almost incredible (until now!) 3.5million mark, it seems that major media outlets will keep this story an inside page and not at the top. It is dispiriting. The laughable thing (if it was not so serious) is that many deniers I have met on the web think this is still mainly about polar bears.Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed text per request. -
BaerbelW at 19:44 PM on 26 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
R.Gates @ 1 - Your wish is our command: I just published the German translation! -
Bernard J. at 19:04 PM on 26 August 2012Climate Change, Irreversibility, and Urgency
I just commented on the latest Arctic sea ice thread about the urgency of humanity's response (or lack thereof) to climate change. To hark to that other great denial of science we're basically at the point where the patient is coughing up blood, and his doctor is telling him that he should have already given up smoking if he doesn't want to die of lung cancer. And the patient continues to smoke, because he doesn't (want to) believe his doctor when said physician tells him that the patient's addiction has already killed him. I'm also reminded of one of the few episodes of The Mentalist to which I (ironically) exposed myself... -
Bernard J. at 18:46 PM on 26 August 2012Why Arctic sea ice shouldn't leave anyone cold
The events and phenomena described in this thread constitute what I believe are collectively a pivotal point in the whole of humanity's response to human-caused global warming. Quite frankly, if this isn't sufficient to move us to an urgent, global, and extreme response to what we're doing to the planet, nothing will. Certainly not until it's far too late. And if we don't engage in that immediate response, then the future non-viabilities of our global, technological culture, and of a significant proportion of the biodiversity of the planet besides, are guaranteed. Those who have known me for a number of years are probably familiar with my progress toward pessimism over the last two or three. I'm going to stick my neck out now and say that if nothing substantial is achieved around the world in the next 12 months or so, or of things go backwards - for example, if there is a change of government in Australia that results in a removal of a carbon price - then subsequent commentary of the whole subject of climate change will simply be no more fruitful than to speculate on how we best manage our decent back to the stone age... if we're that lucky.
Prev 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 Next
