Northwest Passage opens

[Chris]

August 11, 2008
Sea ice decline accelerates, Amundsen's Northwest Passage opens

The pace of sea ice loss sharply quickened in the past ten days, triggered by a series of strong storms that broke up thin ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Amundsen's historic Northwest Passage is opening up; the wider and deeper route through Parry Channel is currently still clogged with ice.

Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent on August 10 was 6.54 million square kilometers (2.52 million square miles), a decline of 1 million square kilometers (390,000 square miles) since the beginning of the month. Extent is now within 780,000 square kilometers (300,000 square miles) of last year's value on the same date and is 1.50 million square kilometers (580,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

 

[Jeepers]

Cool... is another mini ice age on the horizon?

 

[editec]

I'm sure that Henry Hudson is spinning in his watery grave.

Well...we finally got that Northwest passage to Asia, folks.

 

[Chris]

I'm sure that Henry Hudson is spinning in his watery grave.

Well...we finally got that Northwest passage to Asia, folks.

This is all happening at the low end of the solar cycle and the Southern Oscillation. When they heat up, things will get even weirder.

 

[editec]

This is all happening at the low end of the solar cycle and the Southern Oscillation. When they heat up, things will get even weirder.

I am open to the theory that solar cycles are heating up the planet.

The thing is, is there evidence to support the theory that global warming has changed the earths temperature as quickly as it seems to be warming up now?

 

[Chris]

I am open to the theory that solar cycles are heating up the planet.

The thing is, is there evidence to support the theory that global warming has changed the earths temperature as quickly as it seems to be warming up now?

The solar scientists at the Stanford Solar Center estimate that the sun accounts for at the most 25% of the warming we are seeing. The sun could counteract the effect of CO2, but we continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere every day. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2. We have melted most of the pole in 50 short years.

 

[Bern80]

The solar scientists at the Stanford Solar Center estimate that the sun accounts for at the most 25% of the warming we are seeing. The sun could counteract the effect of CO2, but we continue to add CO2 to the atmosphere every day. Soon we will have doubled the amount of CO2. We have melted most of the pole in 50 short years.

Who is 'we'? All human activity? The U.S.?

 

[dilloduck]

Who is 'we'? All human activity? The U.S.?

I gotta admit--sometimes I did breathe a little more than I should have-anyone got a carbon credit I can borrow ?

 

[Denny Crane]

Solar cycles would explain the temperature swings we can point to in a graph, but the real evidence to me is the climate change taking place.

The rapid temperature change since the industrial age indicates to me that
Co2 emissions are the mostly likely reason because of fossil fuel. What we have done is upset the balance of nature and I believe the worst is yet to come. People can make a scientific case from a lot of sources for and against global warming but it's the climate changes that is evidence we need to do something drastic to at least slow it down as much as possible.

Something has to be done to stop the the massive destruction of our rain forest and deforestation in other areas also because we are doing extreme damage to the lungs of the planet.

To put my theory into perspective the earth is like a person with a 2 pack a day habit and we need to do something to get it to stop smoking.

 

[dilloduck]

Solar cycles would explain the temperature swings we can point to in a graph, but the real evidence to me is the climate change taking place.

The rapid temperature change since the industrial age indicates to me that
Co2 emissions are the mostly likely reason because of fossil fuel. What we have done is upset the balance of nature and I believe the worst is yet to come. People can make a scientific case from a lot of sources for and against global warming but it's the climate changes that is evidence we need to do something drastic to at least slow it down as much as possible.

Something has to be done to stop the the massive destruction of our rain forest and deforestation in other areas also because we are doing extreme damage to the lungs of the planet.

To put my theory into perspective the earth is like a person with a 2 pack a day habit and we need to do something to get it to stop smoking.

Plug all volcanoes, methane vents and sulpher springs.

 

[editec]

The rapid temperature change since the industrial age indicates to me that Co2 emissions are the mostly likely reason because of fossil fuel.

The correlation between the rise in earth mean temperature and industrialization (and the estimate of CO2 resulting from industrialization, too) are suspiciously strong.

While I do not entirely discount that other things might be effecting the global temperature, such correlation between the manmade CO2 emissions in the last 150 years, and the steady rise in earth temperatures during that same time. is just to too coincidental to entirely ignore.

Now, what this modern society we have, one which is based on cheap hyndrocarbons and one which assumed for five or six generations that burning these hydrocarbons in increasing amounts every year will have no effect, is quite another topic of discussion.

But as to the debate whether we can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt (as though proof beyond a reasonable doubt was something mankind can afford to demand) is absurd.

Erring on the side of moderation seems like the very least we should be doing.

The question really is how do we do that?

I know I'm planning on running my furnace this winter... assuming that I can afford to, at least.

 

[Chris]

The correlation between the rise in earth mean temperature and industrialization (and the estimate of CO2 resulting from industrialization, too) are suspiciously strong.

While I do not entirely discount that other things might be effecting the global temperature, such correlation between the manmade CO2 emissions in the last 150 years, and the steady rise in earth temperatures during that same time. is just to too coincidental to entirely ignore.

Now, what this modern society we have, one which is based on cheap hyndrocarbons and one which assumed for five or six generations that burning these hydrocarbons in increasing amounts every year will have no effect, is quite another topic of discussion.

But as to the debate whether we can PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt (as though proof beyond a reasonable doubt was something mankind can afford to demand) is absurd.

Erring on the side of moderation seems like the very least we should be doing.

The question really is how do we do that?

I know I'm planning on running my furnace this winter... assuming that I can afford to, at least.

It is amazing that there are people who thing that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will have no effect on the earth's temperature.