Polar ice cap melts 6.1% per decade

[Meister]

You really have nothing by insults.

Certainly no facts are on your side.

Why are the glaciers and the polar ice cap melting?

I keep telling you the SUN Let it sink and and quit asking such stupid questions

The sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

So why is the ice still melting?

The Sun

 

[Oddball]

Chris the broken record ...

Rocks the short sighted ...

... yeah ...

Koder and "Dude" are smarter than the scientists at MIT.

As you've been asked numerous times and refused to answer (I notice a pattern developing here); which MIT scientists, the ones who pimp for the AGW hoax or the one who have said that it's all nonsense??

 

[Chris]

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

The scientists at MIT estimate that this will cause the earth to heat up 4-7 degrees in the next century.

But I am sure that you believe you are smarter than the scientists at MIT.

You still avoid big pictures ... does more than one variable just give you a headache?

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

What other variable are you talking about?

 

[elvis]

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 by 40% in the last 200 years.

We are adding 10 BILLION TONS of CO2 to the atmosphere every year.

The scientists at MIT estimate that this will cause the earth to heat up 4-7 degrees in the next century.

But I am sure that you believe you are smarter than the scientists at MIT.

You still avoid big pictures ... does more than one variable just give you a headache?

The Sun is at its lowest level of activity in 80 years.

What other variable are you talking about?

the variable of your douchebaggery.

 

[Bern80]

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

Again Chris no one is disputing any of this is happening. The question is why. I want you to do me a favor. Just for the sake of argument suspend what you think you know and play along with me for a second. What if you we (humans) don't have anything to do with this or even if our role in the warming is relatively minor? That would make all your scare articles simply normal cycles of nature. If that is the case should we be tampering with trying to stop it?

 

[code1211]

BNClimate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates
David Chandler, MIT News Office
May 19, 2009

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought - MIT News Office

The problem with the projections is that they always, that is, every time without exception, prove to be wrong. This projection is for 100 years. It will undoubtedly be proven wrong within 20 years. The previous MIT projection was proven wrong in 5 years.

By invoking the holy name of MIT, you expect the statement to be placed above any sort of critique. MIT is wrong as often as it is right. Such is the case with a busy group such as this.

It is good that they create a model to test their hypothesis. With the variety of forces at work, though, the model will not be capable of doing anything more than garnering grants from those who have asked them to arrive at the conclusion that is desired.

 

[Chris]

BNClimate change odds much worse than thought
New analysis shows warming could be double previous estimates
David Chandler, MIT News Office
May 19, 2009

The most comprehensive modeling yet carried out on the likelihood of how much hotter the Earth's climate will get in this century shows that without rapid and massive action, the problem will be about twice as severe as previously estimated six years ago - and could be even worse than that.

The study uses the MIT Integrated Global Systems Model, a detailed computer simulation of global economic activity and climate processes that has been developed and refined by the Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change since the early 1990s. The new research involved 400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters, selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge. Other research groups have estimated the probabilities of various outcomes, based on variations in the physical response of the climate system itself. But the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well - such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries.

Study co-author Ronald Prinn, the co-director of the Joint Program and director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, says that, regarding global warming, it is important "to base our opinions and policies on the peer-reviewed science," he says. And in the peer-reviewed literature, the MIT model, unlike any other, looks in great detail at the effects of economic activity coupled with the effects of atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems. "In that sense, our work is unique," he says.

The new projections, published this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, indicate a median probability of surface warming of 5.2 degrees Celsius by 2100, with a 90% probability range of 3.5 to 7.4 degrees.

Climate change odds much worse than thought - MIT News Office

The problem with the projections is that they always, that is, every time without exception, prove to be wrong. This projection is for 100 years. It will undoubtedly be proven wrong within 20 years. The previous MIT projection was proven wrong in 5 years.

By invoking the holy name of MIT, you expect the statement to be placed above any sort of critique. MIT is wrong as often as it is right. Such is the case with a busy group such as this.

It is good that they create a model to test their hypothesis. With the variety of forces at work, though, the model will not be capable of doing anything more than garnering grants from those who have asked them to arrive at the conclusion that is desired.

Wrong.

These models work very well. You calculate the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the warming effect of that CO2. It is just that simple.

If anything I think they are too conservative. If the methane in the arctic gets released the effects will be much great than the effect of CO2 alone. And that seems to be happening now.

 

[KittenKoder]

My prediction: The ice will increase in December! We will freeze to death!

 

[Chris]

My prediction: The ice will increase in December! We will freeze to death!

My prediction: You will continue to ignore the smartest people on the planet.