CLIMATE CHANGING RAPIDLY!!!!! The North Pole is Now a Lake!!!

I'm not too familiar, or educated about this sort of thing... but it interests me.

What sort of impact will this have on us in the long run? Earth will be under water? Do we have the technology to manipulate the weather and reverse it?

No mention of that on the blog 'climate depot' a blog I get a daily update from, in the past few weeks there have been a lot of posts on this blog about sea ice increasing, and as regards the Arctic, no melting above the eightieth parallel.

What we need here is some carbón taxes and then some major inflation to go with the carbón taxes and then we need thousands upon thousands more small buisnesses going bankrupt bankrupt that will save the methane from heating up the atmosphere.

reply to post by blindlyzack

Super, Super, Super ignorant.

Just because something is survivable does not mean theres no cause for worry. This could be disastrous

The ice is melting!! The ice is melting!!

Quick!!! Someone send this info to Obama so he can save us. A 20% national sales tax should cover the costs. We all have to do our part to reverse this course we're on!! Get your check books out, people! Obama might need another 4 years to get this fixed, too!

[end sarcasm]

Originally posted by NoExpert
No one is arguing that the world doesn't go through warming and cooling phases. As a geologist it's one of the areas I study in depth and the world has indeed been a lot hotter (and cooler) in the past. The issue however is what the cause of the current warming trend is. It's not the sun. It's not any orbital change. It's not volcanic. It's us.

This is what amazes me. We know the climate is dynamic. We know there have been large variances in the past. Yet we can definitively say that the current trend is man made? And in saying that, are the scientists who say this implying that without human intervention, the global temp will not correct itself over time?

I think the rush to have an answer to this has jaded the data to the point that everyone is afraid to admit they don't know for sure. What I worry about is us doing something really dumb to "help" and then find out it was a stupid idea. Like introducing an invasive species to an area in hope of changing nature. It never works out like it did on paper, yet it continues to happen. Piss poor planning leads to piss poor results. Nature is a big thing. Bigger than any of us. It will deal with us as it sees fit. And there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

I do wish that all the do gooders on both sides would come together and push towards an alternative fuel source to clean up the air.

Originally posted by pikestaff
No mention of that on the blog 'climate depot' a blog I get a daily update from, in the past few weeks there have been a lot of posts on this blog about sea ice increasing, and as regards the Arctic, no melting above the eightieth parallel.

Please cite your references to your claim please.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by blindlyzack

 

Super, Super, Super ignorant.

Just because something is survivable does not mean theres no cause for worry. This could be disastrous

The ice is melting!! The ice is melting!!

Quick!!! Someone send this info to Obama so he can save us. A 20% national sales tax should cover the costs. We all have to do our part to reverse this course we're on!! Get your check books out, people! Obama might need another 4 years to get this fixed, too!

[end sarcasm]

Obama is not the way to go...if you wish to see increase in taxes....talk to Al Gore.

Here's another article about this Arctic lake.
(It also provides a cool interactive photo that depicts it.)

Surprisingly, the pole has been melting since at least 2002, according to photos on the project's website.

July is usually the warmest month in the area, but temperatures were 1 to 3 degrees Celsius above average this year. The shallow lake you see at the pole is made of meltwater sitting on top of a layer of ice, according to the observatory.

Arctic sea ice has become a noticeable victim of climate change. The area of ice cover expands and contracts every year with the change in seasons, but last summer's minimum extent was the lowest on record and this year's maximum winter coverage was the sixth-lowest since satellite observations began in the 1970s.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

These 'minimums' are a part of what scientists are talking about...

As mentioned above, since satellite observations began in the 1970s - last summer's minimum was the lowest on record; the maximum being the 6th lowest.

I don't know why when somebody mentions Climate Change, skeptics want to jump on them, and immediately label them 'alarmists'. Facts are facts, these changes affect places. I for one, when I discuss Climate Change; am not suggesting the extinction of the human race. But this is a reality. Nobody is lying to you, these reports are based on actual evidence and observations made by qualified researchers.

Everybody has an opinion, and they're entitled to it. - I notice constantly, people are focusing on the wrong things. They're more worried about somebody making a 'buck'... but all of that aside, it becomes irrelevant when facing the potential fall-outs of what these various changes can have on people everywhere.

(This is a thread I posted about what these changes can do to weather patterns, etc.)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

s*** runs deep.
If you want to continue to be a Climate Change denialist, Be my guest. It doesn't matter to me. The full extent of what's going on remains unknown, or whatever the overall outcome will be. But that's the point; scientists are trying to research this Nature based reality - and a select few, are more worried about a 'government' conspiracy to exploit it. (shake my head) It is what it is.

reply to post by iunlimited491

I don't know why when somebody mentions Climate Change, skeptics want to jump on them, and immediately label them 'alarmists'.

If your complaint is that people resort to name-calling instead of focusing on the substance, the science, how do you reconcile that with your first comment in this thread?

I love the deniers - completely oblivious to the world around them. Makes me laugh.

And why are you guys debating man-made v.s. natural climate change?

Because this is the central issue of the debate. The answer to this (fundamental) question would ultimately lead to entirely different solutions.

If human emissions are the main cause for global warming, then the only sensible and more important effective solution would be to drasticly reduce the use of 'fossil fuels'. In essence, decarbonisation.

If the climate changes of the past decades are part of a natural cycle, which would include cooling periods, then adaptive measures would be the only logical thing.

However, if the global climate is as senstive to the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as it is assumed to be, but natural variability is found to be strong enough to overwhelm its effect, then it could also be considered to keep emissions at certain high rates in order to prevent the earth from cooling.

Note, the above is only a (oversimplified, granted) summary of where the debate is at. Note also, if your position is that solar activity is at least equally important as human contributions, you are, per definition, a 'sceptic'.


You could talk to any scientist that is convinced that human CO2 emissions are mainly responsible for the 20th century warming, and he would tell you that changes in solar activity played only a minor role.

The long range forecast for solar activity expects the next sun spot cycle to be weakest in recent history.

What we're going to see is a extensive discussion wether or not the coming solar minimum will be similar (or can be compared) to past minimas (Maunder-& Dalton minimum) and wether these 'anomalus' solar cycles were indeed the cause for prolonged cooling periods like the little ice age, in fact the discussion is already taking place.

The next couple of years will provide researchers with the perfect opportunity to answer some of the fundamental questions as to what exactly are the dominant factors in climate dynamics.

If, ideally, the conditions of the last decade prevail, (no exceptionally strong ENSO-events, no major volcanic eruptions, no significant changes for the main climate oscillations and steadily increasing greenhouse gas emissions) then, for the first time in history, scientist will be able to study each individual aspect of the climate system in ways never possible before. (This is of course also the case, if there are significant changes, but this would increase uncertainty.)

Climate Science is now in the unique postions to have access to vast amounts of data provided by data gathering networks that measure changes in climate system with relatively high precision.

I think we're going to learn a lot in the next few years.

Originally posted by mykingdomforthetruth
What we need here is some carbón taxes and then some major inflation to go with the carbón taxes and then we need thousands upon thousands more small buisnesses going bankrupt bankrupt that will save the methane from heating up the atmosphere.

Small businesses by majority, run the economy....and you, are an idiot my friend. That was the stupidest comment of the day I have ever read by a member on ATS.

Originally posted by mykingdomforthetruth
What we need here is some carbón taxes and then some major inflation to go with the carbón taxes and then we need thousands upon thousands more small buisnesses going bankrupt bankrupt that will save the methane from heating up the atmosphere.

That right there is funny.
Yeah we really need a Pyrrhic victory over climate change.

I for one plan to get in on the ground floor and grab up a bunch of beach front property while it is cheap and plentiful.
Hmmmm, I wonder how the fishing is.

reply to post by Skywatcher2011


I just noticed that you're still posting comments. I've asked you earlier in the thread, wether you have actually spend some time to find out if your OP is accurate. I don't know if you've simply missed my post or had no interest to reply.


Do you have any plans to correct the errors that have been pointed out to you by several members?

First, the Barneo buoy farm (the one with the webcams) was nowhere near the northpole by the time the picture was taken, but more than 300 miles further east.



Here is a picture of roughly the same area taken today.


source

And finally ...



Does that make any difference to you?

reply to post by Fromabove


I am sure it has been said previous my statement, but from what I am informed: Around the summer time, it always turn into a lake. Nothing new but a sensational topic.

Bye for now

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
reply to post by Skywatcher2011

 

I just noticed that you're still posting comments. I've asked you earlier in the thread, wether you have actually spend some time to find out if your OP is accurate. I don't know if you've simply missed my post or had no interest to reply.


Do you have any plans to correct the errors that have been pointed out to you by several members?

First, the Barneo buoy farm (the one with the webcams) was nowhere near the northpole by the time the picture was taken, but more than 300 miles further east.

Here is a picture of roughly the same area taken today.

source

And finally ...

Does that make any difference to you?

posted on 24-7-2013 @ 10:31 PM this post
Gee as a kid i remember the North Pole, was accesable by Submarine????,

thnks,, i thought there was,

Originally posted by Fromabove

Yet the most amazing thing is what happens there during the winter months. The lake disappears and becomes solid ice. Simply amazing.

Thee is no global warming, or man made climate change as they like to call it now. It's all got to do with the sun and it comes and goes in cycles.

AT LAST!

Some bloody common sense for a change.

Summer = Ice thawing (YES..even at the North Pole)

Winter = Ice forming (guess where?)

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
reply to post by iunlimited491

 

I don't know why when somebody mentions Climate Change, skeptics want to jump on them, and immediately label them 'alarmists'.

If your complaint is that people resort to name-calling instead of focusing on the substance, the science, how do you reconcile that with your first comment in this thread?

I love the deniers - completely oblivious to the world around them. Makes me laugh.

And why are you guys debating man-made v.s. natural climate change?

Because this is the central issue of the debate. The answer to this (fundamental) question would ultimately lead to entirely different solutions.

If human emissions are the main cause for global warming, then the only sensible and more important effective solution would be to drasticly reduce the use of 'fossil fuels'. In essence, decarbonisation.

If the climate changes of the past decades are part of a natural cycle, which would include cooling periods, then adaptive measures would be the only logical thing.

However, if the global climate is as senstive to the radiative forcing effect of CO2 as it is assumed to be, but natural variability is found to be strong enough to overwhelm its effect, then it could also be considered to keep emissions at certain high rates in order to prevent the earth from cooling.

Note, the above is only a (oversimplified, granted) summary of where the debate is at. Note also, if your position is that solar activity is at least equally important as human contributions, you are, per definition, a 'sceptic'.


You could talk to any scientist that is convinced that human CO2 emissions are mainly responsible for the 20th century warming, and he would tell you that changes in solar activity played only a minor role.

The long range forecast for solar activity expects the next sun spot cycle to be weakest in recent history.

What we're going to see is a extensive discussion wether or not the coming solar minimum will be similar (or can be compared) to past minimas (Maunder-& Dalton minimum) and wether these 'anomalus' solar cycles were indeed the cause for prolonged cooling periods like the little ice age, in fact the discussion is already taking place.

The next couple of years will provide researchers with the perfect opportunity to answer some of the fundamental questions as to what exactly are the dominant factors in climate dynamics.

If, ideally, the conditions of the last decade prevail, (no exceptionally strong ENSO-events, no major volcanic eruptions, no significant changes for the main climate oscillations and steadily increasing greenhouse gas emissions) then, for the first time in history, scientist will be able to study each individual aspect of the climate system in ways never possible before. (This is of course also the case, if there are significant changes, but this would increase uncertainty.)

Climate Science is now in the unique postions to have access to vast amounts of data provided by data gathering networks that measure changes in climate system with relatively high precision.

I think we're going to learn a lot in the next few years.

Except time to learn or having discussions is too late.
It;s when a snow ball starts rolling, which starts small and gets bigger.
Yea learning how big it becomes and how fast but without any (real) action. Getting so big already there is little time left to stop it (if we didn't go too far already).

The only 'progress' you see are putting leaves in his track, that's about it like the tax sollutions, but so far that didn't helped 1 bit.
But that's all what there is left, because how you turn it, it will cost money and when there aren't earnings, you are left with louzy 'sollutions'.
Only when things get really really bad, then you see but then it's far to late to turn it arround sadly.

reply to post by Plugin

Except time to learn or having discussions is too late. It;s when a snow ball starts rolling, which starts small and gets bigger. Yea learning how big it becomes and how fast but without any (real) action. Getting so big already there is little time left to stop it (if we didn't go too far already).

What exactly is happening right now, that makes you think it's too late to learn and to discuss what we've learned. And please, no hand-waving and blanket statements like: "just look at the weather patterns...". Be specific and check wether your claims are supported by science.

One thing we should have learned from threads like this is, no matter how sensationalist or alarmist a claim is, it dosen't make it automatically true.

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
reply to post by Plugin

 

Except time to learn or having discussions is too late. It;s when a snow ball starts rolling, which starts small and gets bigger. Yea learning how big it becomes and how fast but without any (real) action. Getting so big already there is little time left to stop it (if we didn't go too far already).

What exactly is happening right now, that makes you think it's too late to learn and to discuss what we've learned. And please, no hand-waving and blanket statements like: "just look at the weather patterns...". Be specific and check wether your claims are supported by science.

One thing we should have learned from threads like this is, no matter how sensationalist or alarmist a claim is, it dosen't make it automatically true.

As the scientists say it, ''when you get over some certain point (with the amount of co2 in the air) which we already have reached or almost, ''that point of no return'', there is no return and things has set in montion things simply can't be stopped whatever we do.
This is because (and this is just science not some made up story) like for example, with the melting of the poles and icy land like in Russia, crazy amounts of menthane gasses will be released. This will have far worse consequences then co2 (in the short term) but the co2 has started the kick off / the kickstarter where climate changes / which sets in motion other even worse climate change effects (like that snowball I mentioned).



But to back it up just google I guess and learn?
Just a random fast link here:
www.usatoday.com...

''On average the amount (co2) is growing by about 2 ppm per year. That's 100 times faster than at the end of the Ice Age.'''

It seems evident that global change has picked up speed but how can scientists know life on earth can't handle a 2 degree change in temperature if the last time this happened humans were not even around? That's the question that keeps coming to mind for me. They can hypothesize but cannot truly know how life will adapt.

Taxing people as if money can fix this is not the answer because it still means using the same fuels that dump excessive carbons into the atmosphere. If we want to make an impact we should use what we know about nature; Plant more trees, invent alternate energy sources, etc.

Our government (US) might also stop giving away billions to lend its own citizens a hand in creating green homes and conerting vehicles as feasible. In this way we may drop from the 2nd worst polluters and serve as an example. Taxing more will make this ideal even less possible. The solutions seem simple enough if wanting to lessen our impact but they keep preaching while spending money to develop more of the same stuff they are preaching is a problem.

Heat Wave in Canada on Wednesday, 14 August


"Historically high heat over the past week has led to broken temperature records in all three northern territories but residents aren't complaining. Temperatures across Canada's three territories have been about ten degrees above normal this week."

10 degrees,,pretty big upswing,,guess the North Pole swim athon is next.


Tough kids
quoted from article:
"Local teacher Barbara Olson and her family found a unique way to deal with the scorching temperatures: they've been snorkeling - in the Arctic Ocean. "Every day when the kids wake up, it's already pretty warm," she said. "They ask to go swimming every day … They ask to go swimming all day long."

Actual article :hisz.rsoe.hu...