Disapperance of Artic sea ice

[Rocky Rascovich]

Okay... your probably saying "oh no... more global warming crap here on ST" ... but some rather alarming statistics was released this last week from several news sources from around the world. Below is the latest release from the AP

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hU5CoGrg6q9-gg3YfryNK1RfMKPQ

Here is another story with a satellite picture: http://www.esa.int/esaEO/SEMYTC13J6F_planet_0.html


Now then, to all the folks out there that think all of the hoopla about global warming is hype... what can you say about this? I still believe alot of whats going on is largely cyclical... solar output, ocean currents... etc.
Yes... I will also agree to a limited extent that man has something to do with this as well.... but according to these articles, this is happening alot faster than expected.

I greatly fear that our winters as we know them will be a thing of the past in a few short years. With the Artic ocean become more ice free, would'nt that greatly impede the build up of those frigid air masses? Does the main source of these air masses originate over the northern continental areas of Canada or northern Siberia? How do you think this will influence our winters in the coming years?

Interestingly, it seems we're getting more extreme cold events early in the season. Yesterday morning for example, 18F in Embarrass, MN. For Sept. 15th, that is definitely impressive.

Anyway... if you care to beat this global warming hoprse one more time, it will be interesting to read some of the feedback on this.

Rocky&family
_________________
Edit: I just noticed the thread that Matthew Carman started back in mid Aug. If the moderator cares to move this to his thread... thats fine.

[MatthewCarman]

This is a natural cycle of earth. The mediveal times experienced a big warm period and they thought that would never change. What happened? A small ice age occured that lasted for decades and brought extreme cold temparatures and killed hundreds of thousunds from famines. (Also to mention the bubonic plague did not help this as around 25% of Europes population died) The earth was very warm before this ice age. Indians could take a canoe across the ocean to scotland. Then the ice age came and some people never saw a summer. June and July for some areas one year had 2 feet of snow and many many farmers starved. (These facts from DC's "little iceage")

So I do think this is just a natural cycle of the earth. We are most likely warming up the earth to a extent but there is no proof to say we are the only or main cuase of earth's warm up. There is also know way of knowing for sure how the little ice age started and if it will happen again but I think it could.

[B Ozanne]

Did anyone see the Wall Street Journal article last week saying that most science is wrong?

Not necessarily completely wrong, but the article said more than 50% of all scientific research contains multiple errors.

If you're thinking what does the Wall Street Journal know about science, I can put that fear to rest. WSJ not only produces world class business articles but they cover many topics better than anybody else. Plus, who better to question science than a newspaper that has nothing to gain from the article.

On another note, who's to say the scientist doing the research about bad science didn't make mistakes himself.

[beaudodson]

Meanwhile...:cool:
http://stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13696

[Mike Smith]

Now then, to all the folks out there that think all of the hoopla about global warming is hype... what can you say about this?

There is an alternate explanation of the melting sea ice and that is soot from China. Some research has been done that shows the soot has darkened the polar ice which has caused it to melt at an accelerating rate -- which would occur even if temperatures cooled slightly.

So,

#1. It is possible the melting polar ice has little or nothing to do with any trend in temperature.

#2. Even if it is due to warming temperatures (or in combination with pollution), it is not unprecedented. I am always amused when it is claimed the ice is at "record" low levels when the "record" only goes to 1979.

I wouldn't lose much sleep over the melting arctic ice at this point when, as Beau points out, the Antarctic ice mass is gaining.

Mike

[Mike Smith]

Did anyone see the Wall Street Journal article last week saying that most science is wrong?


Here is an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal's "Science Journal" column. The most interesting finding, to me, is that results are almost never replicated, a key aspect of the scientific method. By the way, I have corresponded to the author, Robert Lee Hotz, and he is an AWG believer:

Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis
September 14, 2007; Page B1

We all make mistakes and, if you believe medical scholar John Ioannidis, scientists make more than their fair share. By his calculations, most published research findings are wrong.

Dr. Ioannidis is an epidemiologist who studies research methods at the University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece and Tufts University in Medford, Mass. In a series of influential analytical reports, he has documented how, in thousands of peer-reviewed research papers published every year, there may be so much less than meets the eye.

These flawed findings, for the most part, stem not from fraud or formal misconduct, but from more mundane misbehavior: miscalculation, poor study design or self-serving data analysis. "There is an increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims," Dr. Ioannidis said. "A new claim about a research finding is more likely to be false than true."

The hotter the field of research the more likely its published findings should be viewed skeptically, he determined.

Take the discovery that the risk of disease may vary between men and women, depending on their genes. Studies have prominently reported such sex differences for hypertension, schizophrenia and multiple sclerosis, as well as lung cancer and heart attacks. In research published last month in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. Ioannidis and his colleagues analyzed 432 published research claims concerning gender and genes.

Upon closer scrutiny, almost none of them held up. Only one was replicated.

Statistically speaking, science suffers from an excess of significance. Overeager researchers often tinker too much with the statistical variables of their analysis to coax any meaningful insight from their data sets.

"People are messing around with the data to find anything that seems significant, to show they have found something that is new and unusual," Dr. Ioannidis said.

[MatthewCarman]

I think it was in the Swiss Alps they found a mine with tools where once a glacier. What does that tell you? It tells me that area was once warm and not a glacier.

Our records do not go back very far. Mediveal time period had a very warm era. How do we know that era was not warmer than this and that there was even less ice then? Then came the little ice age that lasted for decades. It is inpossible to tell if man is contributing to global warming. In theory we could be and in theory it could also just be the natural life cycle of earth or it could be other reasons.

As Beaudodson showed The Southern Hemisphere sea ice area has broken the previous maximum of 16.03 million sq. km and is currently at 16.26 million sq. km. This represents an increase of about 1.4% above the previous SH ice area record high. The observed sea ice record in the Southern Hemisphere (1979-present) is not as long as the Northern Hemisphere. Prior to the satellite era, direct observations of the SH sea ice edge were sporadic.


What do you say about that?

Are you on the Al Gore and Weather Channel/Dr. Hiedi Cullen band wagon? I am not. I do not believe this and I not think it is right that they try to over hype this up to be more than it is.

[mike scantlin]

glaciers move carman.

[Chris Hayes]

I believe the earth is going through a warming phase, but I have a hard time believing all the hyp that people are pushing. Get ALL of the politicians out of science and then I'll believe what is said about it because the scientists wont be under influence from politicians or special interests. Until then, its a no go for me. Sorry

[Shane Adams]

I don't deny any of the scientific evidence that's obvious. I just don't think it's interesting, newsworthy, or life-altering. Basically, IMO global warming is just another fact of the planet, like rain forests or hurricanes or the monsoon. The earth cycles as it always has. It's just that now Man is here in his infinite wisdom/arrogance to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Color me head-in-the-sand if you wish (a favorite opinion of many thinkers/scientist types) but I just don't find it anything worth losing sleep over.

[B Ozanne]

Marcus Aurelius: "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

Just think of the alternative to global warming. Now that should keep you awake at night.

60 Minutes dragged a reporter down to Chile or Argentina to report on how fast a tidal glacier was retreating. His big argument was that these glaciers have been around for 10,000+ years and now they will be gone in 300 years. He failed to mention that 10,000 years ago the glaciers were part of an ice cap more than a mile thick that occupied large parts of the globe. What's left now are little ice cubes and they always appear to melt fastest right at the end.

[beaudodson]

I don't deny any of the scientific evidence that's obvious. I just don't think it's interesting, newsworthy, or life-altering. Basically, IMO global warming is just another fact of the planet, like rain forests or hurricanes or the monsoon. The earth cycles as it always has. It's just that now Man is here in his infinite wisdom/arrogance to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Color me head-in-the-sand if you wish (a favorite opinion of many thinkers/scientist types) but I just don't find it anything worth losing sleep over.

Agree...

Unfortunately, no matter what happens from here on out the environmentalists are going to blame global warming. If we suddenly shift to an ice age then they will blame global warming. It is like trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. It can't be done. Global warming is going to end up the same way. Everything from here on out will be because of mankind and global warming.

We will all be SICK of hearing about this subject (if you aren't already).

[B Ozanne]

Agree...
It is like trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. It can't be done. Global warming is going to end up the same way. Everything from here on out will be because of mankind and global warming.

We will all be SICK of hearing about this subject (if you aren't already).

Russell's Teapot? Look it up.

[MatthewCarman]

How can a glacier on land move? The Swiss Alps is a mountainus area. Please correct me if I am wrong but I always thought a glacier had to be on water to move? My point was a glacier melted away leaving a old mine with man made tools.

[beaudodson]

Russell's Teapot? Look it up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

[Brandon Sullivan]

There are a few things that still confuse me.... Temperature rises in the arctic are happening, I agree.. But the temperatures still come no wheres near the freezing mark... So why is the ice dissapearing??? Also, people talk about the lack of snow on the polar ice caps.. Again, we go to the same issues.. Temps are rising, but no where near freezing.. Also, with the atmosphere warming, wouldn't this simply allow the atmospheric moisture holding capabilities greater.. Thus enhancing the snow totals?

I can see temps are warming.. But I am trying to stick to the whole regular process of mother nature theory

[Chris Hayes]

Agree...

Unfortunately, no matter what happens from here on out the environmentalists are going to blame global warming. If we suddenly shift to an ice age then they will blame global warming. It is like trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. It can't be done. Global warming is going to end up the same way. Everything from here on out will be because of mankind and global warming.

We will all be SICK of hearing about this subject (if you aren't already).

I got sick of hearing about "climate change" and "global warming" long ago. Ya know, there was a recent poll in Great Britain. More than 50% of the British people believe politicians use "global warming" as an excuse to raise taxes. so true.

[Aaron Kennedy]

I'll bite.

#1. It is possible the melting polar ice has little or nothing to do with any trend in temperature.

I'd like to think we can ALL agree that if ice dissapears, the average albedo of the northern latitudes will decrease and will thus warming will occur (simple radiative transfer theory... less SW radiation reflected).

The mediveal times experienced a big warm period and they thought that would never change.

I'd also like to think we have more knowledge of the Earth's climate system than people of this period. :)

Get ALL of the politicians out of science and then I'll believe what is said about it because the scientists wont be under influence from politicians or special interests.

Al Gore secretly reduces my taxes when I post pro-global warming material on stormtrack. SHHHHHHH.

If we suddenly shift to an ice age then they will blame global warming.

Which is perhaps why the argument is really for human induced climate change. I'm sure many of us are familar with the theory of nuclear winter...

How can a glacier on land move?
Gravity for one. Imagine a piece of ice on a tilted surface.


I got sick of hearing about "climate change" and "global warming" long ago. Ya know, there was a recent poll in Great Britain. More than 50% of the British people believe politicians use "global warming" as an excuse to raise taxes. so true.

The sad part is many of these same people become anti green-tech. Regardless of whether AGW is true or not, fossil fuels and their consumption decrease public health and are becoming limited. Our country will be in for a world of hurt if we can't figure out renewable energy sources soon.

[Chris Hayes]

[The sad part is many of these same people become anti green-tech. Regardless of whether AGW is true or not, fossil fuels and their consumption decrease public health and are becoming limited. Our country will be in for a world of hurt if we can't figure out renewable energy sources soon

I'm all for getting this country off fossil fuels, and more "green" energy, but I'm not on board the "global warming" bandwagon.

[David Douglas]

Don't forget. 82% of all statistics made up on the spot.


;)

[Marcus Opitz]

Regardless of the argument of wether or not we are altering the temperature of the earth, the fact of the matter is that we are altering the earth in many negative ways other than this (political) scientific argument I do not have a phd or such, but I can tell you this:

There are many beaches that are to unsanitary to swim in, many forests are almost gone, and air quality is many metros across the globe (even here in Louisville) are more often than not unhealthy. I am not sure of the amount of control and influence we can have on the grand scheme of things. I personally don't have an opinion either way. I would need more research to make a more educated guess.

It is interesting to see how it seems that there are many conservative people are on here talking about taxes in this argument and what not. I guess that may be due to the fact that many of us live in the midwest.

[B Ozanne]

There are many beaches that are to unsanitary to swim in, many forests are almost gone, and air quality is many metros across the globe (even here in Louisville) are more often than not unhealthy. I am not sure of the amount of control and influence we can have on the grand scheme of things. I personally don't have an opinion either way. I would need more research to make a more educated guess.

I disagree with much of that. Of course cities have bad air quality, but would you rather be in London now or in 1880? While rapidly developing cities in Asia have horrible air quality the rest of the developed world is improving air quality. How about 1920's Pittsburg or 1790's New York City?

In the United States forests are on the increase. In the 1800's VT pretty much wiped out all their forests. Except for some agriculture in the Champlain Valley the state is completely re-forested.

I'd have to say that clean beaches far outweight the closed beaches you see on the tv news.

[Doug Mitchell]

Remember everybody:

1) CO2 emissions from SUVs driven by Republicans are the sole cause of global climate change.
2) There are no benefits to global climate change. There will be less cuddly-wuddly animals like polar bears and more bad, harmful animals like domestic cats.
3) Society cannot adapt to changes in the climate because climate has been static since the dawn of civilization
4) All anecdotal evidence of unusual weather is representative of a shift in climate.
5) People who do not believe tenets 1-4 are not scientists but rather, corporate shills for Big Oil because Al Gore said so.

[Marcus Opitz]

I disagree with much of that. Of course cities have bad air quality, but would you rather be in London now or in 1880? While rapidly developing cities in Asia have horrible air quality the rest of the developed world is improving air quality. How about 1920's Pittsburg or 1790's New York City?

In the United States forests are on the increase. In the 1800's VT pretty much wiped out all their forests. Except for some agriculture in the Champlain Valley the state is completely re-forested.

I'd have to say that clean beaches far outweight the closed beaches you see on the tv news.

Things could be much better with the technology and lessons learned from the past....I do not prefer to "settle" when it comes to making improvements in the environment.

Who do you think mandated the changes to improve air quality, ect? China is more concerned with growth and increasing global power than the health of its land and people. Our country was not much different around the time of the industrial revolution.

[Marcus Opitz]

Remember everybody:

1) CO2 emissions from SUVs driven by Republicans are the sole cause of global climate change.
2) There are no benefits to global climate change. There will be less cuddly-wuddly animals like polar bears and more bad, harmful animals like domestic cats.
3) Society cannot adapt to changes in the climate because climate has been static since the dawn of civilization
4) All anecdotal evidence of unusual weather is representative of a shift in climate.
5) People who do not believe tenets 1-4 are not scientists but rather, corporate shills for Big Oil because Al Gore said so.

Another rediculous point of view, and from what I have read, sadly by many of the people on this board.

[Doug Mitchell]

Another rediculous point of view, and from what I have read, sadly by many of the people on this board.

Funny you should say that given your assessment of beaches, air quality and forests a couple posts up. The quality of all three of those categories has seen huge improvements since the 1970s.

But tell me, do you think we should make policy decisions based on qualitative observations of the environment?

[Marcus Opitz]

We should make educated decisions based on scientific observations that do not always benefit the financial outcomes of a few major corporations. There will always be trade offs and I realize that, however I feel that the trade offs were in most cases only catering to economic developement for a chosen few.

[Marcus Opitz]

Are you "satisfied" with the way things are? I am not. There is always room from improvement, thats all.

[Doug Mitchell]

Are you "satisfied" with the way things are? I am not. There is always room from improvement, thats all.

Yes, why wouldn't I be? The environment overall is fairly healthy. Yes, there's always room for improvement but at what level will you be satisfied? I'm quite content with the fact that improving technology will provide win-win economic situations that will eliminate the need for environmental legislation.

[Michael Thompson]

Did anyone see the Wall Street Journal article last week saying that most science is wrong?

Now that is funny. I would rather back Science than the predictions I have heard from economists over the years !

[Rocky Rascovich]

Interesting responses, some of which makes sense... especially about pollution fallout from China in one of the earlier posts... but I think now we're getting off topic a tad and maybe a little heated. I simply wanted to share the latest story because I do think this is fascinating to watch this unfold. I am convinced that whether man made or not, our climate is changing, and maybe not for the better... especially for us winter enthusiasts... its just stuff we need to adapt to and accept.

I for one will no longer post anything more about global warming... as Shane and a few others have pointed out, its pointless to argue over it and become more divided as a community... As Joe Bastardi says "Enjoy the weather, its the only weather you got"

Lets move on, alright??