The North Pole could melt this year

[Chris]

I suppose you do all the time right, I do not need to talk to one, to know they do not share your opinion that past changes are not relevant. Scientists look at all the facts, Unlike you who seems to want to only focus on those which support your Ideas.

at the least Scientists look at past changes to see how this current period of change compares to them. I am not sure why you think they would not, or that we should not.

anyways I was not joking when I asked about how much ice is left at the poll right now. Do you have a link that shows the ice coverage as of sometime this month? Is there a view from space we can look at that is in real time? Please do not get mad, and think I am messing with you here, I really want to know, and am having trouble finding it on line.

National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)

 

[Charles_Main]

national Snow And Ice Data Center (nsidc)

Ty

 

[Charles_Main]

So what do you think this says?

Arctic sea ice extent on July 16 stood at 8.91 million square kilometers (3.44 square miles). While extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average of 9.91 square kilometers (3.83 million square miles), it was 1.05 million square kilometers (0.41 million square miles) above the value for July 16, 2007 (see Figures 1 and 2).

the above was taken from the link you provided.

sounds to me like it says there is more ice there now than this time last year, but less than the average from 1979 to 2000, but only slightly less.

Do you maybe see why some people find it alarmist when people say it could be totally free of Ice this year. I am not saying it could not be, but it seems to me if it was not totally free of ice last year, and it right now there is more ice than this time last year, that it is unlikely it will be totally free of ice this year.

 

[DeeJ1971]

Sorry, talking about past changes is just a deflection.

So PAST observations showing that chemical reactions move in the directions of achieving equilibrium, is deflection? PAST observations showing that almost everything in nature has proportionate negative feedbacks that move towards equilibrium is deflection? I thought science was about building on observations and facts already known. So now, everything already known about how the earth's climate has been cyclic, symbiotic, and not at all fragile, are to be discounted in order to believe in your religion? I'd call that blind faith.

 

[Chris]

So PAST observations showing that chemical reactions move in the directions of achieving equilibrium, is deflection? PAST observations showing that almost everything in nature has proportionate negative feedbacks that move towards equilibrium is deflection? I thought science was about building on observations and facts already known. So now, everything already known about how the earth's climate has been cyclic, symbiotic, and not at all fragile, are to be discounted in order to believe in your religion? I'd call that blind faith.

Not blind faith, just reality. CO2 warms the earth. No one denies that. We will soon double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I wonder what the effect of that will be?

 

[Charles_Main]

Now blind faith, just reality. CO2 warms the earth. No one denies that. We will soon double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I wonder what the effect of that will be?

care to comment on the fact that there was more Ice at the north pole as of July 16 of this year, than there was at the same time last year? or are you planning on just ignoring this?

Or maybe you will just respond with the same old tired question you just deflected DeeJ1971's perfectly valid point with in the above quote?

 

[Chris]

So what do you think this says?



the above was taken from the link you provided.

sounds to me like it says there is more ice there now than this time last year, but less than the average from 1979 to 2000, but only slightly less.

Do you maybe see why some people find it alarmist when people say it could be totally free of Ice this year. I am not saying it could not be, but it seems to me if it was not totally free of ice last year, and it right now there is more ice than this time last year, that it is unlikely it will be totally free of ice this year.

Nice post. It may not be ice free this year, but the long term trend is going that direction. Originially, they thought it would be 2050. Then they thought it would be 2030. Now they expect it much sooner. Within the next few years.

 

[Charles_Main]

Nice post. It may not be ice free this year, but the long term trend is going that direction. Originially, they thought it would be 2050. Then they thought it would be 2030. Now they expect it much sooner. Within the next few years.

While I do not discount that it is possible, I would say that the fact that there is more there now than this time last year, sheds some doubt on that idea, and adds to the Idea that they really do not know for sure what is going to happen. Which is why some people think you are being some what alarmist, at least with the title of this thread.

 

[DeeJ1971]

Not blind faith, just reality. CO2 warms the earth. No one denies that. We will soon double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. I wonder what the effect of that will be?

glucose raises blood sugar. No one denies that. We often double our blood sugar levels. I wonder what the effect is?

Oh yeah, we already know what the effect is. Like almost everything else in nature, the human body has negative feedback systems. Recognizing the increased glucose level, the pancreas secretes insulin, thereby bringing the system back to a state of equilibrium. This system is not so sensitive that as soon as blood sugar goes and can barely be detected, a response is triggered.

I don't pretend to understand the negative feedbacks at work in the atmosphere and related to climate. I can however, understand that just because CO2 has risen by 1/3 (still a miniscule percent of all the components in the atmosphere) does not mean that there are not factors at work that will counterbalance it. This is how things have always worked in nature. That doesn't mean we can do whatever we want and not harm OURSELVES. Smog in the air harms us. Toxins in our water harms us. There are things we need to be doing differently for sure. The earth, however, is far less fragile than we are. The apocalyptic scenarios only hurts the environmental cause because credibility is lost.

 

[Chris]

While I do not discount that it is possible, I would say that the fact that there is more there now than this time last year, sheds some doubt on that idea, and adds to the Idea that they really do not know for sure what is going to happen.

I have said that Nature could always counteract what we are doing, but the computer models indicate that doubling CO2 will lead to a 1.5% to 6% increase in global temperatures. I think this effect will be on the high side because of positive feedbacks like ocean absorbtion vs ice and especially permafrost melt which will release large amounts of methane. What we are doing is continuous and relentless, and the effects will grow as time goes on unless Nature somehow intervenes.

 

[Chris]

glucose raises blood sugar. No one denies that. We often double our blood sugar levels. I wonder what the effect is?

Oh yeah, we already know what the effect is. Like almost everything else in nature, the human body has negative feedback systems. Recognizing the increased glucose level, the pancreas secretes insulin, thereby bringing the system back to a state of equilibrium. This system is not so sensitive that as soon as blood sugar goes and can barely be detected, a response is triggered.

I don't pretend to understand the negative feedbacks at work in the atmosphere and related to climate. I can however, understand that just because CO2 has risen by 1/3 (still a miniscule percent of all the components in the atmosphere) does not mean that there are not factors at work that will counterbalance it. This is how things have always worked in nature. That doesn't mean we can do whatever we want and not harm OURSELVES. Smog in the air harms us. Toxins in our water harms us. There are things we need to be doing differently for sure. The earth, however, is far less fragile than we are. The apocalyptic scenarios only hurts the environmental cause because credibility is lost.

A little bit of yeast will leaven a whole loaf of bread. The climatologists have computer models that they feel confident tell them what the effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will be. This part of the field has developed more and more over the years and the pervading view is that doubling the CO2 will lead to a 1.5% to 6% rise in global temperatures.

 

[Wow]

Sorry, talking about past changes is just a deflection.

If you consider the actions of humans, you are considering past changes.

Then you would agree, global warming is not created by the actions of humans.

I'm glad that is settled.

 

[jreeves]

A little bit of yeast will leaven a whole loaf of bread. The climatologists have computer models that they feel confident tell them what the effect of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will be. This part of the field has developed more and more over the years and the pervading view is that doubling the CO2 will lead to a 1.5% to 6% rise in global temperatures.

Hmmm...the AGW hysterics computer models have always been right??

 

[Charles_Main]

Hmmm...the AGW hysterics computer models have always been right??

The models are just that models, they can not possibly include all the factors involved in the climate, and therefore should be taken with a grain a salt.

 

[Chris]

The models are just that models, they can not possibly include all the factors involved in the climate, and therefore should be taken with a grain a salt.

The North Pole and the glaciers are not models, and they are almost gone, and when we double CO2 the effect will be even more pronounced, but people like you will continue to deny it. I have no doubt.

 

[Chris]

Hmmm...the AGW hysterics computer models have always been right??

Actually the science is quite good. You might want to read this article....

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Charles_Main]

The North Pole and the glaciers are not models, and they are almost gone, and when we double CO2 the effect will be even more pronounced, but people like you will continue to deny it. I have no doubt.

almost gone? care to look at that link you showed me again. The north pole has only slightly less ice coverage(in SQ kilometers) today as it did at this time of the year on average from 1979 to 2000. I got that from your own source link that you provided.

From 1979 to 2000 in July it averaged 9.91 million sq Kilometers of coverage. This year in July it was at 8.91 million Sq kilometers. a difference of 1 million sq kilometers or about 10%.

sounds like more alarmist ranting to me.

 

[Chris]

So you would be alarmed if the North Pole melted? I am glad you admit it. Here's a report from a scientist on the scene...

Aalok Mehta aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen
National Geographic News
June 20, 2008
Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker.

RELATED
Shrinking Arctic Sea Ice Thinner, More Vulnerable (March 18, 2008)
Firsthand observations and satellite images show that the immediate area around the geographic North Pole is now mostly annual, or first-year, ice—thin new ice that forms each year during the winter freeze.

Such ice is much more prone to melting during the summer months than perennial, or multiyear, ice, which is thick and dense ice that has lasted through multiple cycles of thawing and refreezing.

"I would say the ice in the vicinity of the North Pole is primed for melting, and an ice-free North Pole is a good possibility," Sheldon Drobot, a climatologist at the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at the University of Colorado, said by email.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080620-north-pole.html

 

[Charles_Main]

So you would be alarmed if the North Pole melted? I am glad you admit it.

There you go again deflecting with cute jokes.

I see you ignored the facts I provided from your own link, which show that the level of Ice is only 10% lower now than it was on average from 1979 to 2000.

I tire of your little game of deflection, but I will read your info and visit your link in due time.

Right now it is time for bed and some well deserved Nookie

enjoy your night.

 

[jreeves]

There you go again deflecting with cute jokes.

I see you ignored the facts I provided from your own link, which show that the level of Ice is only 10% lower now than it was on average from 1979 to 2000.

I tire of your little game of deflection, but I will read your info and visit your link in due time.

Right now it is time for bed and some well deserved Nookie

enjoy your night.

Charles he is hopeless, he ignores that the artic temperature remains unchanged since 1938. He ignores that droughts are on the decrease in the last 100 years....and the denial goes on and on and on....

Some alarmist proclaimed global cooling in the 70's...More Kirk denial

Every single scientist next year could come out tommorow and say that AGW was politically motivated and Kirk would say that they are mistaken....