Expedition To Study Global Warming Put On Hold Because Of TOO MUCH ICE

dbl post

Have a little faith in somebody

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And you think you do? funny stuff...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you a democrat/liberal/progressive?

originally posted by: rockpaperhammock
a reply to: mobiusmale

nope...didn't confuse a thing...we are still talking about two different things.....you are talking about a second in cosmic time and im talking about a minute....so what...its cold one year....the total weight of the ice mass is decreasing as a whole

Glad we cleared that up...and you are absolutely correct that glacial mass is currently declining globally. No doubt about it.

Now let's ask the question, "Why?"

"The big majority of glaciers have been retreating over the past century," he told Reuters. "We even have an accelerated retreat in recent decades." Glaciers have also varied widely - many Alpine glaciers advanced in the 1970s and 1980s.

Thursday's study estimated that water from melting glaciers has contributed a total of 13.3 cm (5 inches) from 1851-2010 to rising sea levels. Without human influences the rise would still have been 9.9 cm (4 inches).

So, according to my math...this means that this study is suggesting that 80% of the rise in sea levels, due to glacial melt, is not due to "human influences". Interesting...

Also interesting, I think, is:

Until now, scientists have struggled to quantify the impact of human behaviour on glaciers because the frozen rivers of ice take decades, perhaps centuries, to respond to rising temperatures and shifts in snow and rainfall. The study published on Thursday used historical observations of glaciers around the world, except in Antarctica, twinned with computer models to simulate all factors that could explain the retreat. It found that natural variations were not enough on their own, meaning man-made greenhouse gases played an increasing role.

In other words, their current understanding of the natural factors at work in reducing the size of glaciers were not large enough to generate the observed results - so presto - it must be due to human activity. Put another way, they did not input calculated effects (say, from CO2) of human activity...they simply assumed that the gap in understanding must be due to human activity.

And/or...of course...there are other natural affects they do not yet understand (and/or their computer simulations are not yet flawless).

Declining Glaciers

a reply to: mobiusmale

It's funny how the original source makes no mention of global warming.

CBC

I'll repeat, No mention of global warming in the article. Read it yourself.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: mobiusmale

There is no debate on natural climate change factors. That is just a red herring invented by the right wing media to make it sound like a climate change denier isn't really denying science. But like I said, no debate exists around natural climate change. Climate scientists believe in it just as much as they believe in man made climate change, so mentioning it is irrelevant. Scientists DO factor in natural factors into their climate change models. Then they factor in the man-made ones and get the results they do.

Really...there is no debate on natural climate change factors? There is new science being done on this all the time...including the recent "stunner" that suggests that new predictions concerning solar activity might mean that we may enter a mini ice age in as little as 15 years.

I am pretty sure that little tid-bit was not included in Al's Academy Award winning performance (supported by a "cast of thousands" of consensus scientists)...how could it - it wasn't understood at the time the grand consensus was formed.

I am wondering as well, if "deniers" are all just part of some right wing political spin, as you say...if it would be just as fair to claim that "man-made climate change" is just part of some left wing political spin effort?

In summary, climate change theory is a work in progress...and so nobody should reasonably be hanging their hat on any current summary take.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
a reply to: mobiusmale

It's funny how the original source makes no mention of global warming.

CBC

I'll repeat, No mention of global warming in the article. Read it yourself.

Except that your link is not the one referenced in the OP...

That ones says, "An expedition to study the effects of global warming was put on hold Wednesday. The reason? Too much ice."

and also..."ArcticNet is a network of scientists who study “the impacts of climate change and modernization in the coastal Canadian Arctic.”

a reply to: mobiusmale

Except that your link is not the one referenced in the OP...

I followed the trail to the original source-and as I said, no mention of global warming. The only reference I found to the OP's i.e your source that relates to global warming is the tag 'global warming'.

a reply to: mobiusmale

You didn't get the memo, did you.
Global Warming was changed to "Global Climate Change" and it is now settled science that human activity is the cause of Global Climate Changes that will destroy the planet.

Anyone who questions that is a "Denier", one who doesn't believe in the immutable truths revealed by Science. As proof that this is settled science, you need only go to US Government Web sites like NOAA and/or NASA.

Really, what are you thinking? Or maybe that's the problem....you're over thinking the issue when you should be accepting the irrefutable truth as dispensed by Scientists and Government authorities.

originally posted by: mobiusmale

I have no problem with the idea that CO2 (and other) emissions can have a measurable impact on the atmosphere (denying that would be like saying that smog doesn't damage lungs, or that acid rain doesn't happen).

I just happen to be in the camp that believes that there are also larger natural-based forces at work in the present - and discussion about these factors...and how they should be worked into the prediction models...are getting drowned out by the man-made climate change crowd, who like to throw around derisive labels like "denier" if anyone has any other ideas they feel should be considered.

So this is now the fall back position for those who wish to ignore man's great role in changing the chemistry of our waters and atmosphere while causing significant changes to the landscape.

We can not sustain life as we know on this planet if we continue to exploit limited resources as if they are unlimited while at the same time changing the chemistry of the atmosphere and oceans

No longer can a reasonable person deny we are causing changes to the planet, and those who believe those changes are insignificant the planet need to go outside and see first hand the 'progress' of the human race.

a reply to: mobiusmale

CO2 is 400 parts per million now, that is less than half of one percent, of the total atmosphere, so little can have so much effect?
As for the average global temperature, it has not changed for 16 or more years, NOOA says so, if you can get to the unaltered data.
please excuse my prejudice, I rely a lot on the reports shown in climate depot, some people hate the guy, I read the reports and make up my own mind.

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And you think you do? funny stuff...

This, coming from the guy who rebuts my posts with one line posts.

originally posted by: Danke
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Are you a democrat/liberal/progressive?

Why does this matter? My political stance has no baring on if I believe science or not.

originally posted by: mobiusmale
Really...there is no debate on natural climate change factors? There is new science being done on this all the time...including the recent "stunner" that suggests that new predictions concerning solar activity might mean that we may enter a mini ice age in as little as 15 years.

Sigh... Misconstruing my point. The POINT was that there is no debate on if natural climate change is real or not.

I am pretty sure that little tid-bit was not included in Al's Academy Award winning performance (supported by a "cast of thousands" of consensus scientists)...how could it - it wasn't understood at the time the grand consensus was formed.

There you go again. Worrying about a politician in a topic about science.

I am wondering as well, if "deniers" are all just part of some right wing political spin, as you say...if it would be just as fair to claim that "man-made climate change" is just part of some left wing political spin effort?

Maybe. If there wasn't tons of evidence backing it up, you'd be right, but alas, that isn't the case.

In summary, climate change theory is a work in progress...and so nobody should reasonably be hanging their hat on any current summary take.

EVERY theory is a work in progress. That's how science works... That doesn't mean what we currently know is invalid or that we are on the wrong track with what is being said.

Just done a search through my archives, I archived this last year:-

quote from Mr Al Gore from 7 years ago, " the ice cap is falling of a cliff, it could be completely gone in as little as 7 years from now.

An answering quote from the same report:- ' In the last 2 years the summer ice cap has grown by 43%, an area as large as the state of Alaska'

While I think of it, the USGS says that they estimate there are 25,000 polar bears, if they are dying out through lack of ice, they need to breed even more. Someone please tell greenpeace/save the earth/whatever.

a reply to: pikestaff


Care to cite sources to back up your claims?

ALso why must you guys keep using Al Gore as your strawman?

There are movie clips made from satellite images that show an apparent ice melt in the arctic. Seeing is believing.

originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
this issue will never be addressed because of the monumental idiot that decided to call it "global warming" when the more accurate description is "climate change"

I find it amazing how to win the issue what you really need is to get the naming right.

The naming is accurate. Global warming is what you put in: the GLOBAL change in greenhouse driving force, climate change is what comes out. And that changed climate, *globally*, but not uniformly, is also hotter.

originally posted by: pikestaff
a reply to: mobiusmale

CO2 is 400 parts per million now, that is less than half of one percent, of the total atmosphere, so little can have so much effect?

The magnitude of the effect, even in its small state, is enough to have major changes in climate on the human scale, as demonstrated by paleological climate study.

Climate change on the matter that makes a difference to us is quite sensitive.

The changes in greenhouse effect are a few watts per meter squared---total (averaged) solar heat input is more like 250 w/m^2. (and perpendicular Solar output is 1366 W/m^2 at the top of the atmosphere) So in a raw physics scale, it seems small, but so what?

You may also consider the question about pharmaceutlicals---how can such a small concentration (and in most drugs 400 parts per million is tremendous!!!!) have such a large effect.

A blood alcohol level of 0.1%, 1 part in 1000, makes people stumbling drunk. It's still small on a 'physics scale', i.e. humans don't become immediately flammable. But people would be dead long before then.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Arctic sea ice extent for June 2015 was the third lowest in the satellite record. June snow cover for the Northern Hemisphere was the second lowest on record. In contrast, Antarctic sea ice extent remained higher than average. The pace of sea ice loss was near average for the month of June, but persistently warm conditions and increased melting late in the month may have set the stage for rapid ice loss in the coming weeks.

And just like that....here's your contridiction!
Enjoy
nsidc.org...

originally posted by: mobiusmale

That ones says, "An expedition to study the effects of global warming was put on hold Wednesday. The reason? Too much ice."

Except there's no mention what research CCGS Amundsen is doing. You said global warming research, not even your source stated what research was scheduled.

Except!! by claiming it was GW research when in reality we don't know, it helps strengthen the false cause of the anti GW crowd by saying see? see? when there is nothing to look at.