reply to post by Grimpachi
Yes, indeed. We're soon not going to have an arctic circle.
Since 1979 it has been possible to accurately monitor ice cover at both poles via satellite photography. The animation below shows a 30 year
continuous photographic history of the ice growing in winter and retreating in summer at the North Pole. As the animation plays you can see the year
in the top right hand corner.
There's also bad news on the Southern front:
It turns out that past studies, which were based on computer models without any direct data for comparison or guidance, overestimate the water
temperatures and extent of melting beneath the Fimbul Ice Shelf. This has led to the misconception, Hattermann said, that the ice shelf is losing mass
at a faster rate than it is gaining mass, leading to an overall loss of mass.
The team’s results show that water temperatures are far lower than computer models predicted ...
Now - that's the ANTarctic... but it was considered scientific fact that all the penguins were going to lose their homes not too long ago, too.
Which is interesting when you take into account the topic and discussion here:
This is also borne out by paleo studies that have looked at ice sheet and sea level behaviour in the past and found sea levels to be over 6 metres
higher than current levels when temperatures were only 1 to 2 degrees warmer than now. Multiple lines of evidence point to the same answer - the ice
sheets are sensitive to warming temperatures and are going to cause significant sea level rise over this century (and beyond).
It should be noted that the discussion predates the study mentioned in the 2012 article and has since to be calibrated.
However - I will be, laughing when the year 2100 comes and the sea level shows no appreciable changes.
Which leads me to a related point.
Even when you look at the pro-melting science; the picture is not an alarmist one.
The alarmism is driven exclusively by profiteering. Nothing more. The more panic these people stir up by hijacking science; the more 'hybrid' and
'all electric' cars they can sell (when consumer economics doesn't yet support them as being cost-effective).
reply to post by silent thunder
Be that as it may, I approach the matter from a slightly different vantage: I DO know a thing or two about economics, society, and human nature,
and I am convinced that there is too much momentum to change in the way that the global warming advocates would like the world to change.
You touch on something important, here.
It's not the U.S. and "The west" that are causing the most damaging pollution. It's the developing nations - China, India, parts of South
America, and some parts of Africa.
Their people and economies are demanding cheap power (not energy - power - if energy were water, power is the difference between a garden hose and a
fire hose). Presently - that comes in the form of coal, petroleum distillates, natural gas, and other fossil sources.
No matter how much the West adopts these new reductionist philosophies - these other countries will continue to drive demand even higher as they
For every gallon we remove from our demand, these countries will try to buy one and a half.
And they won't have a cash for clunkers program, clean coal initiatives, etc.