Polar ice cap melts 6.1% per decade

[Chris]

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090804_Figure3.png

 

[KittenKoder]

Even if you had some accurate sources ... you still have yet to show why we need to keep this all frozen in the first place.

 

[elvis]

Even if you had some accurate sources ... you still have yet to show why we need to keep this all frozen in the first place.

take al's word for it.

 

[Chris]

Tuesday, 23 September 2008

Preliminary findings suggest that massive deposits of subsea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats

The first evidence that millions of tons of a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere from beneath the Arctic seabed has been discovered by scientists.

The Independent has been passed details of preliminary findings suggesting that massive deposits of sub-sea methane are bubbling to the surface as the Arctic region becomes warmer and its ice retreats.

Underground stores of methane are important because scientists believe their sudden release has in the past been responsible for rapid increases in global temperatures, dramatic changes to the climate, and even the mass extinction of species. Scientists aboard a research ship that has sailed the entire length of Russia's northern coast have discovered intense concentrations of methane – sometimes at up to 100 times background levels – over several areas covering thousands of square miles of the Siberian continental shelf.

Exclusive: The methane time bomb - Climate Change, Environment - The Independent

 

[KittenKoder]

Methane occurs naturally ... so now show what purpose methane serves in nature.

 

[Chris]

Scientists have discovered massive amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas far more powerful than carbon dioxide, bubbling up from the Arctic seabed, according to an exclusive report published today in the U.K.’s Independent. The revelation raises the frightening possibility that vast quantities of methane long trapped below undersea permafrost will enter the atmosphere and set off runaway global warming. Known as the “Clathrate Gun Hypothesis,” the theory is held as a likely reason that 70 to 96 percent of all species on Earth went extinct at the end of the Permian 251 million years ago.

Arctic Methane ‘Bomb’ Starting to Blow? : Ecoscraps

 

[KittenKoder]

Aaah ... but mass extinction has always produced better species ... it's why we exist after all.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Until China and India, the worlds biggest poluters, sign an agreement to curb "Greenhouse Gas" emissions anything we do will just be a drop in the bucket.

Good luck with that.

 

[Chris]

Until China and India, the worlds biggest poluters, sign an agreement to curb "Greenhouse Gas" emissions anything we do will just be a drop in the bucket.

Good luck with that.

I think we have already passed the tipping point.

 

[KittenKoder]

Until China and India, the worlds biggest poluters, sign an agreement to curb "Greenhouse Gas" emissions anything we do will just be a drop in the bucket.

Good luck with that.

I think we have already passed the tipping point.

They said that 20 years ago.

 

[code1211]

Until China and India, the worlds biggest poluters, sign an agreement to curb "Greenhouse Gas" emissions anything we do will just be a drop in the bucket.

Good luck with that.

Considering CO2 only, our (that is, all of mankind) contribution is only 3% of the annual contribution from all sources. Add in the methane that Chris describes and our contibution to the whole mess decreases again. Dramatically.

Mother nature doesn't think, but if she did, she'd be laughing at those who think that they can control her.

 

[Old Rocks]

Until China and India, the worlds biggest poluters, sign an agreement to curb "Greenhouse Gas" emissions anything we do will just be a drop in the bucket.

Good luck with that.

Considering CO2 only, our (that is, all of mankind) contribution is only 3% of the annual contribution from all sources. Add in the methane that Chris describes and our contibution to the whole mess decreases again. Dramatically.

Mother nature doesn't think, but if she did, she'd be laughing at those who think that they can control her.

A 3% that has added up to a total of about 40% of the total now in the atmosphere. A 3% that is now acidifiying the ocean and affecting the very base of the food chain within the ocean.


MIT Global Change Program | Report 169

Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters
by Sokolov, A.P., P.H. Stone, C.E. Forest, R.G. Prinn, M.C. Sarofim, M. Webster, S. Paltsev, C.A. Schlosser, D. Kicklighter, S. Dutkiewicz, J. Reilly, C. Wang, B. Felzer, J. Melillo, H.D. Jacoby (January 2009)
Joint Program Report Series, 44 pages, 2009

Superseded by Journal of Climate, doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1

Abstract
The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model's first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study. Many changes contribute to the stronger warming; among the more important ones are taking into account the cooling in the second half of the 20th century due to volcanic eruptions for input parameter estimation and a more sophisticated method for projecting GDP growth which eliminated many low emission scenarios. However, if recently published data, suggesting stronger 20th century ocean warming, are used to determine the input climate parameters, the median projected warning at the end of the 21st century is only 4.1°C. Nevertheless all our simulations have a very small probability of warming less than 2.4°C, the lower bound of the IPCC AR4 projected likely range for the A1FI scenario, which has forcing very similar to our median projection. The probability distribution for the surface warming produced by our analysis is more symmetric than the distribution assumed by the IPCC due to a different feedback between the climate and the carbon cycle, resulting from a different treatment of the carbon-nitrogen interaction in the terrestrial ecosystem.

Link to full document (1084 kB PDF)

 

[code1211]

Until China and India, the worlds biggest poluters, sign an agreement to curb "Greenhouse Gas" emissions anything we do will just be a drop in the bucket.

Good luck with that.

Considering CO2 only, our (that is, all of mankind) contribution is only 3% of the annual contribution from all sources. Add in the methane that Chris describes and our contibution to the whole mess decreases again. Dramatically.

Mother nature doesn't think, but if she did, she'd be laughing at those who think that they can control her.

A 3% that has added up to a total of about 40% of the total now in the atmosphere. A 3% that is now acidifiying the ocean and affecting the very base of the food chain within the ocean.


MIT Global Change Program | Report 169

Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters
by Sokolov, A.P., P.H. Stone, C.E. Forest, R.G. Prinn, M.C. Sarofim, M. Webster, S. Paltsev, C.A. Schlosser, D. Kicklighter, S. Dutkiewicz, J. Reilly, C. Wang, B. Felzer, J. Melillo, H.D. Jacoby (January 2009)
Joint Program Report Series, 44 pages, 2009

Superseded by Journal of Climate, doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1

Abstract
The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model's first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study. Many changes contribute to the stronger warming; among the more important ones are taking into account the cooling in the second half of the 20th century due to volcanic eruptions for input parameter estimation and a more sophisticated method for projecting GDP growth which eliminated many low emission scenarios. However, if recently published data, suggesting stronger 20th century ocean warming, are used to determine the input climate parameters, the median projected warning at the end of the 21st century is only 4.1°C. Nevertheless all our simulations have a very small probability of warming less than 2.4°C, the lower bound of the IPCC AR4 projected likely range for the A1FI scenario, which has forcing very similar to our median projection. The probability distribution for the surface warming produced by our analysis is more symmetric than the distribution assumed by the IPCC due to a different feedback between the climate and the carbon cycle, resulting from a different treatment of the carbon-nitrogen interaction in the terrestrial ecosystem.

Link to full document (1084 kB PDF)

So...

3 % comes from one source and 97% comes from another source. Both sources are contributing more all the time.

The 3% contributor is responsible for the increase and the 97% contributor is responsible for none of it? Remember that both sources are continually increasing their production. Therefore, any referance to some hypothesised "balance" is rubbish.

By the by, the primary evidence of ocean acidification is present near the shores of densely populated Human populations which produce sewage and fertilizer run off changing the ocean eco-systems locally and replacing oxygen exhaling plants with CO2 exhaling animals.

Again, identifying a problem, attributing it to the wrong cause and prescribing a cure for the wrong cause will not correct the real world problem. If the problem is Portland dumping poop into the ocean and overfertilizing lawns, no amount of reduced fossil fuel usage will reverse the acidification of the Pacific off the Oregon Coast.

 

[Chris]

Considering CO2 only, our (that is, all of mankind) contribution is only 3% of the annual contribution from all sources. Add in the methane that Chris describes and our contibution to the whole mess decreases again. Dramatically.

Mother nature doesn't think, but if she did, she'd be laughing at those who think that they can control her.

A 3% that has added up to a total of about 40% of the total now in the atmosphere. A 3% that is now acidifiying the ocean and affecting the very base of the food chain within the ocean.


MIT Global Change Program | Report 169

Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters
by Sokolov, A.P., P.H. Stone, C.E. Forest, R.G. Prinn, M.C. Sarofim, M. Webster, S. Paltsev, C.A. Schlosser, D. Kicklighter, S. Dutkiewicz, J. Reilly, C. Wang, B. Felzer, J. Melillo, H.D. Jacoby (January 2009)
Joint Program Report Series, 44 pages, 2009

Superseded by Journal of Climate, doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1

Abstract
The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model's first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study. Many changes contribute to the stronger warming; among the more important ones are taking into account the cooling in the second half of the 20th century due to volcanic eruptions for input parameter estimation and a more sophisticated method for projecting GDP growth which eliminated many low emission scenarios. However, if recently published data, suggesting stronger 20th century ocean warming, are used to determine the input climate parameters, the median projected warning at the end of the 21st century is only 4.1°C. Nevertheless all our simulations have a very small probability of warming less than 2.4°C, the lower bound of the IPCC AR4 projected likely range for the A1FI scenario, which has forcing very similar to our median projection. The probability distribution for the surface warming produced by our analysis is more symmetric than the distribution assumed by the IPCC due to a different feedback between the climate and the carbon cycle, resulting from a different treatment of the carbon-nitrogen interaction in the terrestrial ecosystem.

Link to full document (1084 kB PDF)

So...

3 % comes from one source and 97% comes from another source. Both sources are contributing more all the time.

The 3% contributor is responsible for the increase and the 97% contributor is responsible for none of it? Remember that both sources are continually increasing their production. Therefore, any referance to some hypothesised "balance" is rubbish.

By the by, the primary evidence of ocean acidification is present near the shores of densely populated Human populations which produce sewage and fertilizer run off changing the ocean eco-systems locally and replacing oxygen exhaling plants with CO2 exhaling animals.

Again, identifying a problem, attributing it to the wrong cause and prescribing a cure for the wrong cause will not correct the real world problem. If the problem is Portland dumping poop into the ocean and overfertilizing lawns, no amount of reduced fossil fuel usage will reverse the acidification of the Pacific off the Oregon Coast.

Adding 3% a year for 200 years adds up.

 

[Zoom-boing]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/85522-a-global-warming-leader-admits-his-lie.html

 

[Oddball]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/85522-a-global-warming-leader-admits-his-lie.html

Bookmark that one, ladies and genitals!

 

[Oddball]

Until China and India, the worlds biggest poluters, sign an agreement to curb "Greenhouse Gas" emissions anything we do will just be a drop in the bucket.

Good luck with that.

I think we have already passed the tipping point.

Of course you do.

Wormy little doom-and-gloomer negative Nancys have to not only see the glass as half empty, they have to question the viability of the glass as an adequate vessel for the water.

 

[Chris]

Until China and India, the worlds biggest poluters, sign an agreement to curb "Greenhouse Gas" emissions anything we do will just be a drop in the bucket.

Good luck with that.

I think we have already passed the tipping point.

Of course you do.

Wormy little doom-and-gloomer negative Nancys have to not only see the glass as half empty, they have to question the viability of the glass as an adequate vessel for the water.

You really have nothing by insults.

Certainly no facts are on your side.

Why are the glaciers and the polar ice cap melting?

 

[Oddball]

You have nothing worth commenting upon but your sorry-assed doom-and-gloomery, regurgitated babbling points and the litany of logical fallacies.

Invective is all you're worth anymore, you fucking loser.

 

[KittenKoder]

A 3% that has added up to a total of about 40% of the total now in the atmosphere. A 3% that is now acidifiying the ocean and affecting the very base of the food chain within the ocean.


MIT Global Change Program | Report 169

Probabilistic Forecast for 21st Century Climate Based on Uncertainties in Emissions (without Policy) and Climate Parameters
by Sokolov, A.P., P.H. Stone, C.E. Forest, R.G. Prinn, M.C. Sarofim, M. Webster, S. Paltsev, C.A. Schlosser, D. Kicklighter, S. Dutkiewicz, J. Reilly, C. Wang, B. Felzer, J. Melillo, H.D. Jacoby (January 2009)
Joint Program Report Series, 44 pages, 2009

Superseded by Journal of Climate, doi: 10.1175/2009JCLI2863.1

Abstract
The MIT Integrated Global System Model is used to make probabilistic projections of climate change from 1861 to 2100. Since the model's first projections were published in 2003 substantial improvements have been made to the model and improved estimates of the probability distributions of uncertain input parameters have become available. The new projections are considerably warmer than the 2003 projections, e.g., the median surface warming in 2091 to 2100 is 5.1°C compared to 2.4°C in the earlier study. Many changes contribute to the stronger warming; among the more important ones are taking into account the cooling in the second half of the 20th century due to volcanic eruptions for input parameter estimation and a more sophisticated method for projecting GDP growth which eliminated many low emission scenarios. However, if recently published data, suggesting stronger 20th century ocean warming, are used to determine the input climate parameters, the median projected warning at the end of the 21st century is only 4.1°C. Nevertheless all our simulations have a very small probability of warming less than 2.4°C, the lower bound of the IPCC AR4 projected likely range for the A1FI scenario, which has forcing very similar to our median projection. The probability distribution for the surface warming produced by our analysis is more symmetric than the distribution assumed by the IPCC due to a different feedback between the climate and the carbon cycle, resulting from a different treatment of the carbon-nitrogen interaction in the terrestrial ecosystem.

Link to full document (1084 kB PDF)

So...

3 % comes from one source and 97% comes from another source. Both sources are contributing more all the time.

The 3% contributor is responsible for the increase and the 97% contributor is responsible for none of it? Remember that both sources are continually increasing their production. Therefore, any referance to some hypothesised "balance" is rubbish.

By the by, the primary evidence of ocean acidification is present near the shores of densely populated Human populations which produce sewage and fertilizer run off changing the ocean eco-systems locally and replacing oxygen exhaling plants with CO2 exhaling animals.

Again, identifying a problem, attributing it to the wrong cause and prescribing a cure for the wrong cause will not correct the real world problem. If the problem is Portland dumping poop into the ocean and overfertilizing lawns, no amount of reduced fossil fuel usage will reverse the acidification of the Pacific off the Oregon Coast.

Adding 3% a year for 200 years adds up.

Really? 200 years ... that's 20 generations ... 2 lifetimes ... for only a 3% increase of 1% of the atmosphere. That really isn't that much in the grand scheme of things.