Northwest Passage opens for the third time in recorded history

[Chris]

The Northwest Passage is now open for business. And, as this satellite image composited by the The University of Illinois Cryosphere Today shows, the Northeast Passage is too. Jeff Masters at WunderBlog reports:

"It is now possible to completely circumnavigate the Arctic Ocean in ice-free waters, and this will probably be the case for at least a month. This year marks the third consecutive year—and the third time in recorded history—that both the Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage have melted free. The Northeast Passage opened for the first time in recorded history in 2005 and the Northwest Passage in 2007.

Northwest and Northeast Passages Now Open | Mother Jones

 

[Old Rocks]

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.000.png

 

[westwall]

So this is the fourth time its opened in recorded history? If that is true then how come it is CO2 that is causing the warming when clearly there wasn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere the last three times to open it?

What was the mechanism of warming for the passage to be opened before?

 

[RyzinEnagy]

So this is the fourth time its opened in recorded history? If that is true then how come it is CO2 that is causing the warming when clearly there wasn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere the last three times to open it?

What was the mechanism of warming for the passage to be opened before?

Solar activity and natural variation from year to year (that doesn't form a long-term trend) could certainly open it up for short periods of time. The problem today is that solar activity is at a minimum yet these things are occurring, and starting to occur consistently.

 

[Jeremy]

Fucking Discovery Channel. What are they doing to this planet?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And this is because of all of that sensitive CO2? But you can't show this in a laboratory because there are too many other variables, amiright?

 

[RyzinEnagy]

And this is because of all of that sensitive CO2? But you can't show this in a laboratory because there are too many other variables, amiright?

Can't show what? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs heat and warms the Earth? There's plenty of proof for that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And this is because of all of that sensitive CO2? But you can't show this in a laboratory because there are too many other variables, amiright?

Can't show what? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs heat and warms the Earth? There's plenty of proof for that.

That's like saying "paper burns so if we stuff enough of it into a rocket we can reach the Moon"

It's really low-brow and unscientific.

No one is disputing that CO2 is a GHG, we're just asking you to show us ONE time in a lab setting how a 200PPM increase does any of the things you say it does.

Democrats controlled Congress during most of this recent warming period so maybe a Dem Congress is responsible for the Arctic Ice melting.

 

[RyzinEnagy]

And this is because of all of that sensitive CO2? But you can't show this in a laboratory because there are too many other variables, amiright?

Can't show what? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs heat and warms the Earth? There's plenty of proof for that.

That's like saying "paper burns so if we stuff enough of it into a rocket we can reach the Moon"

It's really low-brow and unscientific.

No one is disputing that CO2 is a GHG, we're just asking you to show us ONE time in a lab setting how a 200PPM increase does any of the things you say it does.

Democrats controlled Congress during most of this recent warming period so maybe a Dem Congress is responsible for the Arctic Ice melting.

This study shows how a doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm increases temperature between 1.5 and 6.5 degrees C, with 3 to 3.5 being the most likely. This study has it between 2.5 to 3.5 degrees. This one has it between 2.3 and 4.1 degrees.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can't show what? That CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs heat and warms the Earth? There's plenty of proof for that.

That's like saying "paper burns so if we stuff enough of it into a rocket we can reach the Moon"

It's really low-brow and unscientific.

No one is disputing that CO2 is a GHG, we're just asking you to show us ONE time in a lab setting how a 200PPM increase does any of the things you say it does.

Democrats controlled Congress during most of this recent warming period so maybe a Dem Congress is responsible for the Arctic Ice melting.

This study shows how a doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm increases temperature between 1.5 and 6.5 degrees C, with 3 to 3.5 being the most likely. This study has it between 2.5 to 3.5 degrees. This one has it between 2.3 and 4.1 degrees.

I had to skim all three just in the very unlikely event that one was an actual laboratory test using only changes in CO2 as the control.

Did you read any of them before posting?

 

[RyzinEnagy]

That's like saying "paper burns so if we stuff enough of it into a rocket we can reach the Moon"

It's really low-brow and unscientific.

No one is disputing that CO2 is a GHG, we're just asking you to show us ONE time in a lab setting how a 200PPM increase does any of the things you say it does.

Democrats controlled Congress during most of this recent warming period so maybe a Dem Congress is responsible for the Arctic Ice melting.

This study shows how a doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm increases temperature between 1.5 and 6.5 degrees C, with 3 to 3.5 being the most likely. This study has it between 2.5 to 3.5 degrees. This one has it between 2.3 and 4.1 degrees.

I had to skim all three just in the very unlikely event that one was an actual laboratory test using only changes in CO2 as the control.

Did you read any of them before posting?

Yes, but it's not clear to me what you are looking to prove. These and other studies have shown the temperature increases of CO2 on a global pattern, taking into account its interaction with other greenhouse gases and controlling for the amount of sunlight and other things that could change the global temperature. If you're talking about testing it inside of a box or something, you can't put everything the Earth has to offer into a box to come up with an accurate projection.

I don't know if you're asking exactly how much heat CO2 will absorb by itself. That has been measured by minds smarter than me (and probably you and everybody else on the board). I don't personally understand much of it, but the research has been done.

If the absorption properties of CO2 has been proven, and historical studies on the effect of CO2 on this planet have been done, what else is there to prove?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This study shows how a doubling of CO2 from 280ppm to 560ppm increases temperature between 1.5 and 6.5 degrees C, with 3 to 3.5 being the most likely. This study has it between 2.5 to 3.5 degrees. This one has it between 2.3 and 4.1 degrees.

I had to skim all three just in the very unlikely event that one was an actual laboratory test using only changes in CO2 as the control.

Did you read any of them before posting?

Yes, but it's not clear to me what you are looking to prove. These and other studies have shown the temperature increases of CO2 on a global pattern, taking into account its interaction with other greenhouse gases and controlling for the amount of sunlight and other things that could change the global temperature. If you're talking about testing it inside of a box or something, you can't put everything the Earth has to offer into a box to come up with an accurate projection.

I don't know if you're asking exactly how much heat CO2 will absorb by itself. That has been measured by minds smarter than me (and probably you and everybody else on the board). I don't personally understand much of it, but the research has been done.

If the absorption properties of CO2 has been proven, and historical studies on the effect of CO2 on this planet have been done, what else is there to prove?

Sigh...what's the use?

 

[RyzinEnagy]

I had to skim all three just in the very unlikely event that one was an actual laboratory test using only changes in CO2 as the control.

Did you read any of them before posting?

Yes, but it's not clear to me what you are looking to prove. These and other studies have shown the temperature increases of CO2 on a global pattern, taking into account its interaction with other greenhouse gases and controlling for the amount of sunlight and other things that could change the global temperature. If you're talking about testing it inside of a box or something, you can't put everything the Earth has to offer into a box to come up with an accurate projection.

I don't know if you're asking exactly how much heat CO2 will absorb by itself. That has been measured by minds smarter than me (and probably you and everybody else on the board). I don't personally understand much of it, but the research has been done.

If the absorption properties of CO2 has been proven, and historical studies on the effect of CO2 on this planet have been done, what else is there to prove?

Sigh...what's the use?

Maybe one day we can both get the schooling necessary. Until then, I'll let your pure partisan ideology discount the work of very smart individuals.

Speaking of which, why do you discredit the actual science involved here. Is it because you associate it with socialism/Obama/Al Gore/Liberal Democrats? Or is it because you have actually disproven the evidence I've shown (of which none is of the "OMG it's so hot today" variety).

 

[Chris]

So this is the fourth time its opened in recorded history? If that is true then how come it is CO2 that is causing the warming when clearly there wasn't enough CO2 in the atmosphere the last three times to open it?

What was the mechanism of warming for the passage to be opened before?

The Northeast Passage opened for the first time in recorded history in 2005 and the Northwest Passage in 2007.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Yes, but it's not clear to me what you are looking to prove. These and other studies have shown the temperature increases of CO2 on a global pattern, taking into account its interaction with other greenhouse gases and controlling for the amount of sunlight and other things that could change the global temperature. If you're talking about testing it inside of a box or something, you can't put everything the Earth has to offer into a box to come up with an accurate projection.

I don't know if you're asking exactly how much heat CO2 will absorb by itself. That has been measured by minds smarter than me (and probably you and everybody else on the board). I don't personally understand much of it, but the research has been done.

If the absorption properties of CO2 has been proven, and historical studies on the effect of CO2 on this planet have been done, what else is there to prove?

Sigh...what's the use?

Maybe one day we can both get the schooling necessary. Until then, I'll let your pure partisan ideology discount the work of very smart individuals.

Speaking of which, why do you discredit the actual science involved here. Is it because you associate it with socialism/Obama/Al Gore/Liberal Democrats? Or is it because you have actually disproven the evidence I've shown (of which none is of the "OMG it's so hot today" variety).

There is no real science involved in anything you've posted!

Warmers claim they've isolated all variables except for a de minimus change in CO2 as the proximate cause of the "Global Warming" all I'm asking is for any of you to show me how that works in a Laboratory setting

And you never do.

Not even once.

 

[Chris]

Sigh...what's the use?

Maybe one day we can both get the schooling necessary. Until then, I'll let your pure partisan ideology discount the work of very smart individuals.

Speaking of which, why do you discredit the actual science involved here. Is it because you associate it with socialism/Obama/Al Gore/Liberal Democrats? Or is it because you have actually disproven the evidence I've shown (of which none is of the "OMG it's so hot today" variety).

There is no real science involved in anything you've posted!

Warmers claim they've isolated all variables except for a de minimus change in CO2 as the proximate cause of the "Global Warming" all I'm asking is for any of you to show me how that works in a Laboratory setting

And you never do.

Not even once.

Someone posted the experiment a few weeks ago, and you ignored it.

And it was proven experimentally in 1859.

 

[Chris]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeYfl45X1wo]YouTube - CO2 experiment[/ame]

 

[Chris]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY&NR=1]YouTube - Greenhouse effect (in a bottle) explained[/ame]

 

[Chris]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0kIaCKPlH4]YouTube - Global Warming in a Jar[/ame]

 

[Charles_Main]

The Northwest Passage is now open for business. And, as this satellite image composited by the The University of Illinois Cryosphere Today shows, the Northeast Passage is too. Jeff Masters at WunderBlog reports:

"It is now possible to completely circumnavigate the Arctic Ocean in ice-free waters, and this will probably be the case for at least a month. This year marks the third consecutive year—and the third time in recorded history—that both the Northwest Passage and Northeast Passage have melted free. The Northeast Passage opened for the first time in recorded history in 2005 and the Northwest Passage in 2007.

Northwest and Northeast Passages Now Open | Mother Jones

For the first time in Recorded history eh?

Recorded history goes back about 6000 years yet our knowledge of the conditions in the NW passage only go back a few hundred years.

Do try and be more honest with your sensational Headlines would you.

Before just a few hundred years ago we have NO IDEA if and when the passage was open and when it was not.

besides why do you keep trying to prove things are warming up. Virtually nobody denies that the earth is warming up. The Debate is over the cause and how much CO2 is to blame, and how much other factors like the SUN are in play.