Arctic sea ice vanishing faster than 'our most pessimistic models': researcher

Arctic sea ice vanishing faster than 'our most pessimistic models': researcher

www.canada.com

WINNIPEG — Sea ice in Canada’s fragile Arctic is melting faster than anyone expected... raising the possibility that the Arctic could, in a worst-case scenario, be ice-free in about three years.

University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber, the lead investigator of the Circumpolar Flaw Lead System Study, said the rapid decay of thick Arctic Sea ice highlights the rapid pace of climate change in the North and foreshadows what will come in the South.

(visit the link for the full news article)

This study is quite important since it involves actual hands on work.

Barber and more than 300 scientists from around the globe spent last winter on the Canadian Coast Guard research ship Amundsen in the Arctic, studying the impact of climate change. It was the first time a research vessel remained mobile in open water during the winter season. The Canadian government provided $156 million in funding for the study.

These conclusions were reached by going and looking and measuring, not by just looking at historical data or arguing theoretically. Some other important snippets

“We’re seeing it happen more quickly than what our models thought would happen,” Barber said at a student symposium on climate change in Winnipeg. “It’s happening much faster than our most pessimistic models suggested.”
Barber said before the expedition that climate scientists were working under the theory that climate change would happen much more slowly. It was assumed the Arctic would be ice-free in the winter by 2100.

“We expect it will happen much faster than that, much earlier than that, somewhere between 2013 and 2030 are our estimates right now. So it’s much faster than what we would expect to happen. That can be said for southern climates as well.”

The impact means more variability in the Earth’s climate — warm trends are warmer and cold trends are colder.

Dr. John Hanesiak, an associate professor at the University of Manitoba’s Centre For Earth Observation Science, said that due to human actions and the release of greenhouse gases, those extremes may include more frequent summer droughts and more spring floods in southern climates.

“We know that we’re part of the problem,” he said. “There’s no question about that. The models are telling us that now.”

www.canada.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Vitchilo


So what. I don't care. The earth was way hotter than that before, with way more CO2 and guess what, humans were not around. It wasn't the end of the world.

And we might not be suited to be around this time either.
It's not the changing climate or the CO2 that's bothering me, but everything else we're dumping into nature.

Oh, and please, have a little respect when posting - You come of as one of those people who yell "where's your global warming now, eh?" with the current snowfall. Here's a hint, it's what to be expected, hence we go *facepalm*

Originally posted by Vitchilo
So what. I don't care. The earth was way hotter than that before, with way more CO2 and guess what, humans were not around. It wasn't the end of the world.

It's just funny to watch the retards freaking out over it. If you want to help the earth, kill yourself for your religion GAIA. Go ahead.

When there is no food in the grocery stores you will most certainly care. Further, one must define "end of the world". For the more than 10,000 species of animals that have already gone extinct, it most certainly was the end of existence. The Earth doesn't need humans to survive, so exactly what would be YOUR definition of the end of the world?

Perhaps a lesson on how food chains work is in order.

The only thing we do agree on is that the Earth's temperatures are a cycle and occurred before humans and will continue after humans. Humans have an impact, but I personally feel that it's negligible at best. Speeding up warming by 100, 200, even 500 years is really nothing when looking at a 250,000 - 750,000 or so year cycle.

One of the problems with any and all predictions related to the melting of sea ice is the word "exponential". The more that melts, the faster what's left melts and so on. Nobody knows for certain when we will "bottom out".

When do they make up their mind, it seems they don't know either.
The earth was way hotter and I like summertime more then these cold winter days. When the earth is hotter there comes more Carbon Dioxide and when that will happen plants and crops can grow harder. They feed of Carbon Dioxide. I don't see a problem at all.

Peace.

reply to post by Vitchilo


Also we are quite aware of the baseline in Co2 emmisions, adding 13% to that isn't helping. Luckily we got fossil records to show us what climate to expect.

But again, i love witnessing the dynamics of the climate happening right before my eyes but co2 is really the least of our problems. Deniyng the problem wont make it go away

reply to post by Vincent84


It could actually help with the over population problem we're facing. Several farmers where i had, could harvest twice the last two summers.

The bad part is, that if the gulf stream shuts down, i'm gonna be living under a mile of ice or so

What if it"s not man made?I mean what if we can't stop it?Every discussion I have seen assumes we are able to control the temperature of the planet.What if we simply can't?

Originally posted by Vincent84

When do they make up their mind, it seems they don't know either.
The earth was way hotter and I like summertime more then these cold winter days. When the earth is hotter there comes more Carbon Dioxide and when that will happen plants and crops can grow harder. They feed of Carbon Dioxide. I don't see a problem at all.

Peace.

Yes, crops and surface plants will thrive in most areas with more CO2. But here's the problem: many of our ocean plants and animals -- the very source of all living things -- the very beginning of the food chain -- can not survive when the ocean temperatures increase. It will be a domino effect. Once ocean life -- plankton for example -- die off it will spread to the surface animals and plant life. See the pattern yet?

reply to post by genius/idoit


I must agree, it always end in a discussion about who/what's causing with both sides agreeing that it is happening - instead of having a discussion about how to deal with it, which areas can expect what and such.

We have the fossil recoards that can give us some hints, but the face of the earth has changed a lot.

At the moment, clean drinking water looks to be one of our next big looming problems.

Originally posted by genius/idoit
What if it"s not man made?I mean what if we can't stop it?Every discussion I have seen assumes we are able to control the temperature of the planet.What if we simply can't?

I personally don't think we can control it. Perhaps we could use technology to delay it -- but not by much. We had nothing to do with the prior ice ages and prior periods of warming. Again, even if humans are affecting it by a little (which of course we are simply by existing with modern conveniences), I don't see why it matters in the overall life cycle of the Earth if we speed it up by 200 or even 500 years? If the Earth goes through periods of warming and cooling every 100,000 years or so -- 200 years has a negligible affect overall.

Further, in order for scientists to try to stop the cycle altogether -- or least maintain it enough so as to not affect plant and animal life -- they would have to control every single aspect of the Earth from oceans to volcanoes to the rain forests to the glaciers to the atmosphere. I personally wouldn't want any human messing around with all of that.

There is not just one source of global warming to combat.

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Global climate change is real, but it's NATURAL and it's called WEATHER.

Erm. No.

Global climate change, natural and unnatural, is called climate change.

"WEATHER" refers to local fluctuations in local conditions (as opposed to "global").


Great find metamagic, btw. S&F. ...VERY important findings.

Looks like we'd best prep for major change. Too bad the banks cleaned us out already though - we could use the cash about now.

reply to post by lpowell0627


You think that plankton didn't life a few 100.000 years ago?
The records show it was much hotter in the past and life started in the oceans right? I think the temperatures change and there is nothing we can do about it. It is more like take it or leave it.

Life always finds a way to life, we can survive in ice ages like we did and we can survive in hotter climates. So does nature.

reply to post by genius/idoit


Anyone who thinks man can control the temperature of the planet has been seriously drinking his bathwater. We are along for the ride and whatever the Earth, Sun, and Volcanoes decide to do is whats gonna happen and there is pretty much nothing we can do about it but attempt to survive.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
So what. I don't care. The earth was way hotter than that before, with way more CO2 and guess what, humans were not around. It wasn't the end of the world.

It's just funny to watch the retards freaking out over it. If you want to help the earth, kill yourself for your religion GAIA. Go ahead.

I would say that your mom is the problem when she had sex with that guy and it resulted in you being born.

That sort of is the point, I'm not really keen on going back to the time when there were no humans around. And the personal attack is really not at the level of debate I had hoped to see. I stated nothing of my own beliefs, merely brought to the attention of ATS some scientific results.

Anyway, is this scientist talking about the coal burning silently under the ground that emits millions of tons of CO2 every year? No. Does he talks about volcanos emitting way more CO2 than humans ever will? No. Does he talk about even the lying UN global warming report saying that humans, AT MOST, were producing 13% of worldwide CO2 emissions? No?

Why not deal with what is in front of you? This is about going out and measuring the rate of ice loss in the Arctic. Everything you said has nothing to do with what was posted since the article only stated that the data show we are part of the problem. Unfortunately your knee-jerk hysterical reaction that has nothing to do with the article does nothing for your argument except make it look liek foolish ranting.

Yeah, ``scientist``, you're a joke and your whole BS that humans are the cause of global warming have been exposed as a scam for years now and in the last few months, the majority of people don't believe your crap no more.

Name calling is not debate. The article does not say anything about the cause, but your reaction does show a sad ad badly mistaken belief that this is all about politics and beliefs for everyone involved. This is about science, going and finding things out. Show me the converse, a year long field study that demonstrates the opposite and I'll consider your position. Ranting does not convince me to take a position, facts do.

Global climate change is real, but it's NATURAL and it's called WEATHER.

One of the most moronic statements I have ever read. The motto of ATS is "deny ignorance" not "embrace ignorance." Perhaps you misread it?

Originally posted by genius/idoit
What if it"s not man made?I mean what if we can't stop it?Every discussion I have seen assumes we are able to control the temperature of the planet.What if we simply can't?

You are exactly right my friend. That is the whole point. We can't stop it, even if we were the only cause, the point of no return has been passed. The companion article to the one I posted pointed out that climate change, irrespective of cause, will have a major impact on agriculture, industry and politics. The urgency is to find out how we can adapt ourselves and our civilization so that we lessen the impact.

There is a chance that we are part of the problem, not necessarily the cause, which means that if we do change those things that exacerbate the changes, we may be able to moderate some of the extreme effects and give ourselves some breathing room.

At this point it's not about whether or not it exists, and certainly anyone that suggests that we can do something now to prevent it is totally out of touch. But what we need to do is look at all of the possible scenarios and try to understand the ways we respond to each.

The politics and name calling don't do a thing for our children and their children, but unfortunately we see far too much of that on both sides of the debate.

Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean

www.sciencedaily.com...

dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com...

YUp and the sun doesn't affect the earth either,

globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com...

It seems that we still don’t know everything there is to know about our earth-climate system. Take this for example. Scientists have just now discovered an active volcano under the Antarctic ice that “creates melt-water that lubricates the base of the ice sheet and increases the flow towards the sea”.

Yet many claim the CO2 is the driver for any melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. I wonder how this will figure into that argument?

Larsen Ice Shelves A and B, by the way, sit astride a chain of volcanic vent islands known as the Seal Nunataks, which may figure into melting and breakups like this and this. (h/t Alan)

In fact, there are a LOT of volcanoes in Antarctica as you can see in this image. Notice that many are near the edge of the ice, and there are none in the interior, which may be a lack of discovery of ancient ice buried volcanoes. Most scientific bases are near the sea, rather than inland, for supply and weather tolerance purposes and there are many places in the interior that have yet to be fully explored.

These images showing known Antarctic volcanoes and satellite measured temperature trends from 1992-2004 below tends to back up the idea that where there is volcanic activity, temperatures have been rising.

wattsupwiththat.com...

Originally posted by metamagic

Dr. John Hanesiak, an associate professor at the University of Manitoba’s Centre For Earth Observation Science, said that due to human actions and the release of greenhouse gases, those extremes may include more frequent summer droughts and more spring floods in southern climates.

I should point out that the greenhouse gases being mentioned here are not those necessarily being produced by man, but there is some substantial concern that the thawing of the permafrost will release significant amounts of greenhouse gases. The way it is worded seems ambiguous so I thought I would point that out.

"Anyone who thinks man can control the temperature of the planet has been seriously drinking his bathwater. We are along for the ride and whatever the Earth, Sun, and Volcanoes decide to do is whats gonna happen and there is pretty much nothing we can do about it but attempt to survive."

Very true. Only the most egotistical and arrogant of people think that human beings can control mother nature. If mother nature made the decision to eradicate all humans from the face of the planet, there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. We're just a bunch of flies buzzing around, waiting to be swatted.

This study sounds like another Government funded money making scam on the backs of the people. Not surprising that scientists have become the new propaganda tools in this argument since many of them have little or no credibility to begin with. In fact, their entire field of study is looking more and more like one big sham.