2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

[Rozman]

http://marine.rutgers.edu/~francis/pres/Francis_Vavrus_2012GL051000_pub.pdf

3. Conclusions
[14] In summary, the observational analysis presented in this study provides evidence supporting two hypothesized mechanisms by which Arctic amplification – enhanced Arctic warming relative to that in mid-latitudes – may cause more persistent weather patterns in mid-latitudes that can lead to
extreme weather. One effect is a reduced poleward gradient in 1000-500 hPa thicknesses, which weakens the zonal upper-level flow. According to Rossby wave theory, a weaker flow slows the eastward wave progression and tends to follow a higher amplitude trajectory, resulting in slower
moving circulation systems. More prolonged weather conditions enhance the probability for extreme weather due to drought, flooding, cold spells, and heat waves. The second effect is a northward elongation of ridge peaks in 500 hPa waves, which amplifies the flow trajectory and further
exacerbates the increased probability of slow-moving weather patterns. While Arctic amplification during autumn and winter is largely driven by sea-ice loss and the subsequent transfer of additional energy from the ocean into the high-latitude atmosphere, the increasing tendency for highamplitude
patterns in summer is consistent with enhanced warming over high-latitude land caused by earlier snow melt and drying of the soil. Enhanced 500-hPa ridging observed over the eastern N. Atlantic is consistent with more persistent high surface pressure over western Europe. This effect has been implicated as contributing to record heat waves in Europe during recent summers [Jaeger and Seneviratne, 2011].

[15] Can the persistent weather conditions associated with recent severe events such as the snowy winters of 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 in the eastern U.S. and Europe, the historic drought and heat-wave in Texas during summer 2011, or record-breaking rains in the northeast U.S. of summer 2011
be attributed to enhanced high-latitude warming? Particular causes are difficult to implicate, but these sorts of occurrences are consistent with the analysis and mechanism presented in this study. As the Arctic sea-ice cover continues to disappear and the snow cover melts ever earlier over vast regions of Eurasia and North America [Brown et al., 2010], it is expected that large-scale circulation patterns throughout the northern hemisphere will become increasingly influenced by Arctic Amplification. Gradual warming of the globe may not be noticed by most, but everyone – either directly or indirectly – will be affected to some degree by changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events as greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Further research will elucidate the types, locations, timing, and character of the weather changes, which will provide valuable guidance to decision-makers in vulnerable regions.

Dems love Big Government like Rihanna loves Chris Brown, beat them, destroy their families, drive them to dependency -- all out of love

RiRi was photographed this past weekend partying with Chris Brown....
I thought it was a bad thing to beat the crap outta women....
Looks like Rihanna doesn't have a problem with it....

So how is a it a bad thing then ?....
Chicks seem to dig it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can anyone show us how removing a wisp of CO2 from the atmosphere (to the extent that's even possible) will end "Climate Change" (aka: Global Warming)

 

[Rozman]

All I see id the left breaking the United States balls on this Global warming thing.
Lets see Al Gore go to China and get in their face.
How about big tuff guy Al go over to Russia and do the same.

The Russians would take him out.
Al would be found in a seedy hotel with a heroin needle sticking in his arm and gay porn on the TV.
The Russian Mafia would make quick work of him.

 

[skookerasbil]

This thread is so fucking stupid..........

Arctic ice is expanding faster than it has in over 100 years.........

The Toronto Post: Arctic Ice Growth Blows Away All Records

 

[SSDD]

While at the same time antarctic sea ice is far above normal. Square that with the GLOBAL warming hypothesis.

Agauin - if you are familiar with science, why do you compare the climate of a continent with that of the ocean? Why would you expect the Arctic and Antarctic to behave the same way?

Again, the comparison was a reference to the undeniable fact that climate science, as recently as 2011 claimed that global warming would result in rapid melting of the antarctic....it didn't happen so now, according to climate science, colder temperatures in the antarctic are proof of global warming.

In addition to being a liar, a misquoter, a misrepresenter of material, you also have a problem with context. You have whored your integrity for a grand total of nothing on an internet board, and you lost the argument to boot.

 

[SSDD]

You claimed it was a first class paper...it was not. In short, you lied.....again.

You know siagon, the only thing that you have ever, or will ever have that is inherently your own, is your integrity. Why would you so willingly damage such a precious thing lying on an internet board?

Wonderful posting, SSDD - absolutely first class!! I really did laugh out loud at that - again!!

Unfortunately, the British Antarctic Survey do terrific work, and have an excellent reputation. It is run by very highly trained professionals with amazing careers.

If you had read the report, you'd know that of course.

As it is, you have absloutely no idea at all WHY you deny it, do you?!

So in which journal was that "paper" published? I looked but couldn't find any reference to a journal. You claim to be a journalist...do you know what self published means? That is what that "first class" paper was....self published. And exactly which part of it do you believe represents proof of anything. I didn't see anything more than speculation there.

 

[SSDD]

I count 4 Professors and 4 PhD's on that list. so yes, I'd call their work 'academic' and no, I wouldn't call it an "opinion piece"!!!

Again, in which journal was it published? None is the answer to that question....therefore it was a self published opinion piece.

 

[SSDD]

I mean - you read it, right? So you must know why it isn't academic....?

Q: Published where?

A: Self published.

 

[Saigon]

While at the same time antarctic sea ice is far above normal. Square that with the GLOBAL warming hypothesis.

Agauin - if you are familiar with science, why do you compare the climate of a continent with that of the ocean? Why would you expect the Arctic and Antarctic to behave the same way?

Again, the comparison was a reference to the undeniable fact that climate science, as recently as 2011 claimed that global warming would result in rapid melting of the antarctic....it didn't happen so now, according to climate science, colder temperatures in the antarctic are proof of global warming.

.

Um....no....you asked why the Arctic would be behaving differently to the Antarctic.

Again - one is a land mass, and one is an ocean.

Again - for someone with a science background, that seems like an odd thing not to be aware of.

Also, if you HAD read the British Antarctic Survey, you might have noticed that net temperatures in the Antarctic are rising.

 

[Saigon]

I count 4 Professors and 4 PhD's on that list. so yes, I'd call their work 'academic' and no, I wouldn't call it an "opinion piece"!!!

Again, in which journal was it published? None is the answer to that question....therefore it was a self published opinion piece.

There are days I very geninely sorry for Ian C having to read this stuff and not being able to disagree!!

Who knew - one of the world's foremost science academies produces "opinion pieces"!

And you wonder why I think you've conceded the debate?!

 

[IanC]

I count 4 Professors and 4 PhD's on that list. so yes, I'd call their work 'academic' and no, I wouldn't call it an "opinion piece"!!!

Again, in which journal was it published? None is the answer to that question....therefore it was a self published opinion piece.

There are days I very geninely sorry for Ian C having to read this stuff and not being able to disagree!!

Who knew - one of the world's foremost science academies produces "opinion pieces"!

And you wonder why I think you've conceded the debate?!

Ok, if you want to drag me into this fight then you will have to 1. quote the relevent portion of the article 2. give a link to the article 3. explain in your own words what point you think you are making.

in the recent past you made a comment with plagiarized sentences from wikipedia. when I presented evidence against it you then claimed that the words were not your own but a direct quote, even though they were not in quotation marks or in the quote function. so perhaps the first thing you should do is familiarize yourself with how to properly quote and attribute sources.

 

[SSDD]

Who knew - one of the world's foremost science academies produces "opinion pieces"!

British Antarctic Survey? One of the worlds foremost science academies? Is there anything that you don't lie about or mischaracterize? The British Antarctic Survey is no more an academy, much less one of the "worlds foremost" academies than the Betty Crocker kitchens.

The British Antarctic Survey is, according to them, a component of the Natural Environment Research Council which according to the Natural Environment Research Council is a "non departmental public body" which receives funding from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Your so called "world's foremost science academy" is little more than a component of a clearing house for grants and funds...not an academy at all....and certainly not one of the world's foremost academies.

Either you are just to stupid to actually understand what you are posting, or are mistaken in your belief that you are the smartest guy in the room and believe no one else can understand what you are posting. All you are accomplishing here is painting yourself even more inextricably into a corner that you can't get out of.

As to your so called first class science I will echo Ian's request to 1) quote the relevant portion of the article and 2) explain in your own words what point you think you are making.

 

[IanC]

Who knew - one of the world's foremost science academies produces "opinion pieces"!

British Antarctic Survey? One of the worlds foremost science academies? Is there anything that you don't lie about or mischaracterize? The British Antarctic Survey is no more an academy, much less one of the "worlds foremost" academies than the Betty Crocker kitchens.

The British Antarctic Survey is, according to them, a component of the Natural Environment Research Council which according to the Natural Environment Research Council is a "non departmental public body" which receives funding from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Your so called "world's foremost science academy" is little more than a component of a clearing house for grants and funds...not an academy at all....and certainly not one of the world's foremost academies.

Either you are just to stupid to actually understand what you are posting, or are mistaken in your belief that you are the smartest guy in the room and believe no one else can understand what you are posting. All you are accomplishing here is painting yourself even more inextricably into a corner that you can't get out of.

As to your so called first class science I will echo Ian's request to 1) quote the relevant portion of the article and 2) explain in your own words what point you think you are making.

at one time when I first came here I thought Old Rocks was a fairly reasonable and informed fellow, and that if I could just show him that I was too that he would answer reasonable questions and exchange ideas. except for rare and unpredictible exceptions that never happened and he always ducked the hard questions. I dont expect anything different from saigon although I certainly tried to give him the benefit of the doubt when he first arrived.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I have to say, for sheer humour value, this must be one of the best threads ever produced.

I would never have guessed that any one poster could have come up with quite so many reasons - most of them laugh-out-loud silly - for not reading a piece of research.

I'm also delighted to see that the criteria you have developed render most of your own sources and links obsolete - so that will save time in future!


The funniest thing is, if you had just read the research with an open mind, you'd probably have found a lot you could agree with, and you'd certainly have learned a lot about Antarctica. But no....you wouldn't want to risk that, would you?

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

The issue here is (still) SSDD's refusal to read the research from the British Antarctic Survey.

Apparently, the research is not academic - surprising given the team included 4 professor's and 4 other Phd's.

Now, it seems research can only be considered research if it was originally published by a scientific journal. This research has been covered widely by the media, but apparently that means it can not be considered science.

I recommend going through the thread if you're in need of a laugh.

in the recent past you made a comment with plagiarized sentences from wikipedia. when I presented evidence against it you then claimed that the words were not your own but a direct quote, even though they were not in quotation marks or in the quote function. so perhaps the first thing you should do is familiarize yourself with how to properly quote and attribute sources.

Seriously? In all honesty, man, you do push the limits with some of this faux-outrage. The quote in question appeared in a separate paragraph from my own text, and immediately above a clearly marked link.

I have really tried to be patient with these red herrings, but they are not the most convincing means of deflection I've seen!

 

[Saigon]

a component of a clearing house for grants and funds.

BANG!

Just when I think you can't post any sillier - here you go again!!! Magical posting, SSDD!!

British Antarctic Survey (BAS) has a long and distinguished history of carrying out research and surveys in the Antarctic and surrounding regions, undertaking most of the British research on the frozen continent. The close linking of our science programmes with essential logistics support makes us very effective in carrying out the complicated and sophisticated scientific field programmes that are necessary today.

As a major research centre of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC), we:

Provide a national capability for Antarctic science and logistics
Carry out scientific research, long-term observations and surveys that cannot be done by anyone else in the UK
Provide a focus for international co-operation and programme co-ordination
Concentrate on issues fundamental to NERC’s science strategy and conservation of the Antarctic environment.

Scientists in the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) work across many scientific disciplines, including:

Chemistry
Physics
Biology (including ecology and evolutionary biology)
Earth Sciences (including atmospheric science, geology, geophysics, glaciology and oceanography)

The current BAS Science Research Strategy, Polar Science for Planet Earth (PSPE), comprises six science programmes. A total of 25 projects are distributed across the science programmes, and BAS scientists may work on one or more of these projects.

Science - British Antarctic Survey

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ian C -

The issue here is (still) SSDD's refusal to read the research from the British Antarctic Survey.

Apparently, the research is not academic - surprising given the team included 4 professor's and 4 other Phd's.

Now, it seems research can only be considered research if it was originally published by a scientific journal. This research has been covered widely by the media, but apparently that means it can not be considered science.

I recommend going through the thread if you're in need of a laugh.

4 professor's and 4 other Phd's, and still not one single repeatable laboratory experiment

That's some track record

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

I have to say, for sheer humour value, this must be one of the best threads ever produced.

I would never have guessed that any one poster could have come up with quite so many reasons - most of them laugh-out-loud silly - for not reading a piece of research.

I'm also delighted to see that the criteria you have developed render most of your own sources and links obsolete - so that will save time in future!


The funniest thing is, if you had just read the research with an open mind, you'd probably have found a lot you could agree with, and you'd certainly have learned a lot about Antarctica. But no....you wouldn't want to risk that, would you?

You never stop lying do you? Even when caught dead to rights. I have read your so called science, told you why it is not convincing and explained why it isn't the first class scientific paper produced by one of the "worlds foremost scientific academies) (heavy sarcasm) and you still maintain the lie. Pathetic.

Perhaps you might bring forward whatever bit of the paper you beleive makes an unequivocal point and you might describe what that point is as has been requested by both myself and Ian.

When asked secifically to discuss the science and describe what point you are trying to make you still engage in the song and dance and seemingly neverending string of lies. You are getting very boring very quickly.

 

[Spoonman]

how long before we are fighting over mineral rights with russia

 

[Old Rocks]

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2010/4294972962.pdf

There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has
been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes
in land use, including agriculture and deforestation. The size of future temperature
increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still
subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes
are substantial. It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of
the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate
responses.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

Human Impacts on Climate

Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.