It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Early Spring Snowmelt Is Accelerating Climate Change.

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
According to a new study by researchers at the University of Alaska 'Fairbanks Institute of Arctic Biology', the early spring snowmelt currently being experienced in Alaska is accelerating climate change in the region. The progressively early snowmelt is producing the warmest summers in 400 years. The lead author of the study, Terry Chaplin, professor of ecology at the university stated that "Each of these changes seems to trigger other changes that mean more changes will occur,"
 



toda y.reuters.com

The earlier snowmelt, itself a product of a warming climate, is one of the "positive feedback" factors that accelerates warming in the far north

The National Science Foundation-funded study published this week in the online journal Science Express found spring snowmelt had been occurring about 2.5 days earlier per decade, exposing dark ground to solar heat earlier in the season.

"This heat is added to the atmosphere, so the atmosphere in the north becomes warmer and is mixed with the global atmosphere," Chapin said.

Summer warming will be amplified by two to seven times if trees and bushes continue their northern migration into Alaska's Arctic, the study also said.

"When we look hard, we find that most of the warming that's already taken place can be explained by the reduction in winters," Sturm said. "But we know that the change in vegetation is already underway. That has the potential to become even more of a feedback."



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Although many people argue that global warming does not exist and these are things that have happened over a long period of time, it is like a snowball rolling downhill, gathering momentum and gathering more and more snow to it as it rolls unchecked towards a catastrophic event at the bottom.


[edit on 26-9-2005 by Mayet]

[edit on 26-9-2005 by Mayet]




posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 07:28 PM
link   
My uncle once told me, "it's rather arrogant of us humans to think we are responsible for global warming, come on, a volcano hurles up more ash and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a few hours than we can in years.

Wether he was correct or not I do not know, but I have noticed that alot of the weather anomilies do seem to occure every few hundred years or so, according to the news and almanacs, indicating it is not our fault, but rather a natural progression.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 07:48 PM
link   
I'm of the belief that it no longer matters if we are the cause or not.

The fact is that there is global warming happening at an alarming speed and nothing is going to turn that trend around.

I also believe that, even if mankind is the cause, there is nothing we can do to reverse the trend now. The only restraint we are going to show is because we want to save on the cost of living. With the rising price of oil, we will be slowing down on the use of those products because it hurts most in the pocketbook. We will cut our use of electricity anyway we can because the bills are getting high. We will be watching our water use for the same reason.

but...

I think we need to take a close look at what is being threatened by global warming and begin to make preperations for the effects. Cities, close to oceans, will need to prepare for storm surges (like NO is thinking of now).
We need to change business practices which negatively affect our environment. We also need to invest money into projects which actually are beneficial, like wetlands and shore restoration projects.

Time to stop pointing fingers in mirrors and start doing those things which we, so far, have ignored.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mayet
The progressively early snowmelt is producing the warmest summers in 400 years.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by Mayet]


Not that I don't beleive in Global warming, I'm on the fence, But What contributed to the global warming 400 years ago? Its almost like the people who say video games and rock music make people into Killers, What where the Video Games Hitler played, I think it was Doom 1 =)



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
I agree that our contribution to global warming is probably negligible, but even if it isn't I don't know what all the alarm is about. I doubt the earth has seen the last ice age and given a choice of which one I would like to experience, global warming wins hands down.



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   
I believe this is part of a natural cycle where the Arctic warms up and the Arctic ocean melts. Precipitation around the world skyrockets, the gulf stream flow is shut down for practical purposes, then snow piles very deep around the Arctic circle and the next ice age starts again. I've heard that there is a lot of underwater volcanic activity in the Pacific and the Arctic. I don't know if the volcanism is also part of the cycle that is driving these changes but I wouldn't be too surprised if it was. Perhaps man is speeding up the process by a couple of years or a decade or two but that is nothing compared to the natural cycles that have been routinely occurring over thousands of years. Oh I forgot, with the gulf stream flow almost shut down, the tropics heat up even more along with the water getting hotter. If heat isn't dissipated via water, then it gets dissipated via the air with stronger and more frequent hurricanes.

I don't think there is too much we can do stop a longer term natural cycle. However if we slow down the formation of an ice age by 50 years, I would be happy about that. If we develop and implement clean solar technology that saves me money and the environment, I'll be all for it. I'm all for a colder planet since it is too hot where I live at. People need to wear sweaters instead of wasting energy cranking up the heat as well.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 02:38 AM
link   
I notice the expression "I believe" occurs a few times. Presumably then the evidence that scientists around the world have been collecting for decades is ignored and waved aside so you can express your belief of something to the contrary. This evidence has increased dramatically in the past year or haven't you noticed !

Global warming is happening and man has contributed to it . The most vocal anti warming noises come from the US with is desire to continue consuming and polluting without restraint.

It is true that the the affects of warming currently underway will continue for several years probably a few decades even if we stop all emissions now. However if we continue to pollute then the warming trends are guaranteed to continue for even more years afterwards.

Unfortunately whilst the world biggest contributor to global warming (the US) continues to have its head so deep in the sand with China probably joining them then I see no hope of fixing the problem we have created. Our children will not thank us but mine will shown how the US behaved when the science was telling them to do something.........hang on that sounds like a line from a certain film !

This site has an expression every page : "Deny ignorance". It looks like its being ignored.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 11:23 AM
link   
The evidence is not absolute. The warming trend is unquestionable, but man's contribution is questionable in terms of total effect. Most of the "alarming evidence" about global warming is based on computer models, which as anyone who has followed the hurricanes of late can attest, produce myriad possibilities. There is no reason to believe that the problem needs to fixed. If it does need to be fixed, the earth will fix it, not man.

[edit on 2005/9/27 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Here is the citation in Science:
Role of Land-Surface Changes in Arctic Summer Warming

Unfortunately Science won't even give you an abstract, let alone the article, unless you pay them. They do provide the "Supporting Material" tho.

It notes:


We extended the Chapman and Walsh (1) dataset of summer air temperature maps (1961-1990) to 2004. Briefly, a dataset of surface air temperature was developed by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (2) by consolidating monthly air temperatures from land surface stations and monthly sea surface temperatures from the omprehensive Ocean-Atmosphere Dataset. This dataset has been updated annually. We used the best-fit linear trends of June-August temperatures over the 1961-2004 period for all grid cells poleward of 40°N for which no more than 20% of the monthly values were missing.

I think that this is saying that they were including regions that were on the other side of the globe, relative to Alaska, but making sure that they were arctic regions.

Bothersomely, they haven't given any information as to how they made this 400 year claim. They merely state

We synthesized all published long-term records of change in date of spring snowmelt (or other proxies, such as date of leaf out or date of surface soil thaw) for arctic Alaska.

There are methods to reconstruct climate going into the past, but, rather obviously, there haven't been weather stations there for 400 years, and there probably haven't been stations there until the 60's (i'm guessing tho).

None of this precludes or is good reason to reject their argument, which, unfortunately, we can't even see because we don't have access to the paper. That makes the newsreport more or less meaningless. This is the problem with science reporting, the news report is meaningless, its whats in the paper that is important.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If it does need to be fixed, the earth will fix it, not man.

[edit on 2005/9/27 by GradyPhilpott]


Man needs to have a better balance with Earth. If not then you are right, Earth will fix it, Earth will fix man.



posted on Sep, 27 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
If it does need to be fixed, the earth will fix it, not man.

[edit on 2005/9/27 by GradyPhilpott]


Man needs to have a better balance with Earth. If not then you are right, Earth will fix it, Earth will fix man.


And the difference between is our undoing. We are not paying attention to Mother Earth.

We will be our own worst enemy through greed and mismanagement. The failure is to inadequately provide for those who follow us seven generations down the road. Today we even fail our own children.

It's not only about 'global warming', imo...it's also about the poisoning of streams, wetlands, prairie and the natural course of rivers. We have no respect for the flora and fauna in the wilds, yet, they are the 'canary in the mine'. What happens to them is what will happen to us...there can be no other outcome.

One of the finest analogies are deer. As their populations grow due to a lack of predation by wolves, disease sets in and huge parts of them die off, until the environment can again sustain them.

Another is the exploding numbers of Cormorant, especially on the prairie wetlands. The fish populations on which they depend are being decimated...guess what's going to happen to those millions of Cormorant?

Numbers and foodbase, factored into a changing climate can equal only one thing for us...and it's not war, that's just a symptom of the greater affliction.



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Mayet, here is a corroborating article about the same phenomenon:

ARCTIC SEA ICE CONTINUES DECLINE AS TEMPERATURES RISE,
September 28
New satellite records monitored by a national team of
collaborators show a four-year pattern of extremely low summer sea-ice
coverage in the Arctic that continued in September 2005, which
may be the result of warming temperatures and earlier spring
melting.
Full story at www.physorg.com...



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Thanks for that.

Its just breaking now into headlines. It was all over the television news here today and has hit the main news feeds in a big way.

I Expect to hear more debate on the whole global warming issue to come out of this one. Its so sad though, they showed polar bears on the news and said they will die off quickly if the trend continues at this or an accelerated state.



Scientists 'flabbergasted' at Arctic melting
www.abc.net.au...

His NSIDC colleague, Julianne Stroeve, says their satellite observations have been showing that Arctic sea ice is rapidly declining.

"This year in 2005 we reached our all-time minimum since we began the satellite observations in the late 1970s," she said.

"We had sea ice this year that was about 22 per cent below the long-term mean and that's roughly the size of Alaska in terms of how much ice we've lost, in terms of what is normally seen over summer period in the Arctic."

She says the trend is accelerating.

The last four years have seen increasing warm temperatures in the Arctic over the summer months, causing the ice to shrink further and further.

"It's not coming back," she said.

"And this winter was also unusual in that normally, even though in 2002, 2003 we had these really low ice years. After the 2004 minimum, which was the third consecutive year of low ice conditions, we didn't see the winter icecap refreeze, or not quite as rapidly.



[edit on 28-9-2005 by Mayet]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:12 PM
link   

as posted by Mayet
I Expect to hear more debate on the whole global warming issue to come out of this one.

Yeah, I do to....but till then, I found an old interesting article mentioning this:


The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

Reminds us all of those recent claims and assertions that this years super severe US hurricane season was the cause of global warming. Anyhow, the article is from 1975, titled: The Cooling World

Though what is being reported is an actual case of climate change, what also seems apparent is that this Arctic ice melting issue is being used to capitalize on the Katrina and Rita hurricanes as being caused by global warming.

Here's a thought provoking question: Remember this?


Did the now current speculative global warming have anything to do with all the above pictured ice receding?



From the beginning of its debate, the issue of global warming has included discussion about the possibility of melting ice-caps. Lately, though, old studies are being re-examined, and now it seems as though it is the science, not the frozen H20, that can?t take the heat.

For instance, in one study published in Science Magazine in December of 1999, it was reported that the Arctic Polar icecap may have decreased by as much as 14% over a 20 year period. However, upon re-evaluation, it was later published that virtually all of that decrease occurred during a sharp drop over a lone period of 1-3 years. In fact, more recent estimates have the northern ice-caps at least holding steady, and possibly growing a bit.

Questioning global warming evidence
Another 'old' article.





seekerof

[edit on 28-9-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 28 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Well nothing really debunks the global warming theory for the following reason. The impact of humans has started from day dot and grown steadily from there to increase dramatically with the birth of the industrial revolution. So the impact from the industrial revolution would have began in the late 1800's early 1900's. slowly at first and building momentum alongside the birth of the automobile, and massive factories spewing out poisonous smoke and the deforestation of the planet to use wood and a fuel source. As the population has increased so has our impact.

People who argue against global warming saying that humans havent made an impact ore walking with blinkers on, Of course mankind has had an effect. Nature evolves, every day brings more change. Humans have impacted on those changes.

The earth is not the same as 400 years ago or five hundred years ago. Nature has been stripped and mankind taken over at the top of the tree, brushing aside the leaves in his efforts.

The birth of the motor car, we started with one and now one hundred years or so later look at how many motor cars there are. A cat in one year has how many descendants. Everything grows, everything snowballs and climate change is no different, global warming does not get an exemption of the multiplication factors. As mankind suffocates this planet with his very existance, like a parasite that is tolerated but eventually grows to take over and invade all it can't help but change, it can't help but slowly and slowly then faster and faster gather momentum and change and grow.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   
There seems to be a conflict of Science here. Lets take a look at the sources.

Between 1998 and 2004 CFACT has received $382,000 from Exxon and even more from other polluters. Exxon Mobil made a record profit of $25.3billion in 2004 and $21.51bn the year before that.
CFACT exists to spread disinformation and keep the public confused about Global Warming and other environmental issues.

The University of Alaska 'Fairbanks Institute of Arctic Biology' received a grant from The National Science Foundation (NSF) for this project. NSF is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare. Terry Chapin received $89,856 from NSF for this study. NSF has a annual budget of about $5.5 billion.

I wonder who's science is more credible?



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Contrary to what a few people may have been misled to believe, global warming and cooling are natural cycles. I don't believe there is too much debate that we are currently in a global warming cycle. There is a debate about the extent to which mankind has accelerated the global warming.

I believe the rest of the world is overly critical using the US as a scapegoat for anything bad that happens to the weather. If it's too hot or too cold, I hear the US is to blame all the time. I guess maybe we do control the weather if you listen to everyone complain.

The debate now in my opinion should be whether we can do anything to slow down global warming before it results in total shut down of the gulf stream due to the increase in melted ice from arctic regions. I wasn't here during the start of the last ice age (yes they had to have a warming cycle before it started for it to occur) so I will just state that I believe this is what is happening. I can easily imagine snowstorms dumping several feet of snow in northern countries if the arctic is no longer frozen over. The oceans may get warmer but the continents might get very cold. I believe people who do not look at all the evidence of contributors to global warming such as the huge increase in underwater volcanic activity in the Pacific and Arctic are ignoring some important facts.

I also believe the people of the US are more into energy conservation now. I would like to see solar energy promoted much more but I am not the president. I don't believe I will be happy if I see this global warming suddenly change over into an ice age after the arctic ice has disappeared.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Umbrax
There seems to be a conflict of Science here. Lets take a look at the sources.

Between 1998 and 2004 CFACT has received $382,000 from Exxon and even more from other polluters. Exxon Mobil made a record profit of $25.3billion in 2004 and $21.51bn the year before that.
CFACT exists to spread disinformation and keep the public confused about Global Warming and other environmental issues.

So when you can't deal with the science, you slam the source?

A company with a 25 billion dollar a year budget, gives, over somethign like 6 years, a paltry 400,000 dollars to a major 'disinfo' organization???


I wonder who's science is more credible?

You'd really have to look at the science to determine that. Its just as meaningless to reject anti-global warming papers because the researchers receive grants from industries as it is for the 'other side' to reject this more recent and more thorough evidence because of other papers in the past being mistaken.

orionthehunterThe debate now in my opinion should be whether we can do anything to slow down global warming before it results in total shut down of the gulf stream due to the increase in melted ice from arctic regions

Indeed, this is vital. Britain, for example, is at the same lattitude as nova scotia and newfoundland, yet has a drastically warmer climate because of the gulf stream, which might be affected by desalinization of artic waters when artic ice melts.

This is a scientific issue, not a political one, the only way that we're going to get answers on this is thru science. The science currently shows that there's enough of a concern to make cuts to this sort of research idiotic, but there's probably not enough information to warrant Kyoto or holding back india, china, or africa from developing.



posted on Sep, 29 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
So when you can't deal with the science, you slam the source?

A company with a 25 billion dollar a year budget, gives, over something like 6 years, a paltry 400,000 dollars to a major 'disinfo' organization???


CFACT is only one of many groups that Exxon funnels money into to discredit Global Warming.
This is a list of 115 groups that Exxon spends its money on to confuse the issue.
www.exxonsecrets.org...

I cover a hand full of them here, www.abovetopsecret.com...
Their total contributions to these companies for 2004 was Over $6.5 million. A paltry 400,000 dollars is not a lot for Exxon. A 100 thousand here a 100 thousand there, we are talking about a lot of money here, not chump change.

www.exxonmobil.com...

CFACT and these other groups are a bias source. Just as if the University of Alaska received money from the Wind Turbine Company. But the U of Alaska didn't, they got their money from the NSF.

But you are right. I can't deal with the science. I can't check and double check CFACT's sources. As you already know I would have to pay for subscriptions. But from that article I can see that they have done no studies of their own. They have only compared other peoples work and make it seem like the studies are meaningless. CFACT isn't looking at anti-global warming papers, they are only aiming to discredit Global Warming facts.

It doesn't stop with Global Warming either.
CFACT also has written articles about:
-The 'benefits' of drilling for oil offshore to sea life.
-Smoke stacks and air pollution is not that bad.
-CO2 and Global warming are our friends.
- Environmental Risks in Alaska are minimal (tell that to the Caraboo)

I can't do my own studys or subscribe to journals but I can sure as hell tell that CFACT only interested in Exxon & friend's bottom line.





[edit on 29/9/2005 by Umbrax]



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join