How about another climate change thread

[Goober McTuber]

Sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk to its smallest extent ever recorded, smashing the previous record minimum and prompting warnings of accelerated climate change.

Satellite images show that the rapid summer melt has reduced the area of frozen sea to less than 3.5 million square kilometres this week – less than half the area typically occupied four decades ago.

Arctic sea ice cover has been shrinking since the 1970s when it averaged around 8m sq km a year, but such a dramatic collapse in ice cover in one year is highly unusual.

A record low in 2007 of 4.17m sq km was broken on 27 August 2012; further melting has since amounted to more than 500,000 sq km.

The record, which is based on a five-day average, is expected to be officially declared in the next few days by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado. The NSIDC's data shows the sea ice extent is bumping along the bottom, with a new low of 3.421m sq km on Tuesday, which rose very slightly to 3.429m sq km on Wednesday and 3.45m sq km on Thursday.

Scientists predicted on Friday that the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer months within 20 years, leading to possibly major climate impacts. "I am surprised. This is an indication that the Arctic sea ice cover is fundamentally changing. The trends all show less ice and thinner ice," said Julienne Stroeve, a research scientist with the NSIDC.
The shrinking of the ice cap was interpreted by environment groups as a signal of long-term global warming caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. A study published in July in the journal Environmental Research Letters, that compared model projections with observations, estimated that the radical decline in Arctic sea ice has been between 70-95% due to human activities.

"We are on the edge of one of the most significant moments in environmental history as sea ice heads towards a new record low. The loss of sea ice will be devastating, raising global temperatures that will impact on our ability to grow food and causing extreme weather around the world," said John Sauven, director of Greenpeace UK.

Sea ice experts on Friday said they were surprised by the collapse because weather conditions were not especially conducive to a major melt this year. The ice is now believed to be much thinner than it used to be and easier to melt.

Arctic sea ice follows an annual cycle of melting through the warm summer months and refreezing in the winter. The sea ice plays a critical role in regulating climate, acting as a giant mirror that reflects much of the Sun's energy, helping to cool the Earth.

David Nussbaum, chief executive of WWF-UK, said: "The disappearance of Arctic ice is the most visible warning sign of the need to tackle climate change and ensure we have a world fit to pass on to the next generation. The sheer scale of ice loss is shocking and unprecedented. This alarm call from the Arctic needs to reverberate across Whitehall and boardrooms. We can all take action to cut carbon emissions and move towards a 100% renewable economy."

Ed Davey, the UK climate and energy secretary, said: "These findings highlight the urgency for the international community to act. We understand that Arctic sea-ice decline has accelerated over recent years as global warming continues to increase Arctic temperatures at a faster rate than the global average.

"This Government is working hard to tackle climate change and we are working closely with our international partners not to exceed 2 degrees above pre industrial levels. I am calling for the EU to increase its emission target from 20% to 30% and will be taking an active lead at the UNFCCC Climate change talks in Doha later this year, where I will push for further progress towards a new global deal on climate change and for more mitigation action now. The fact is that we cannot afford to wait".

Canadian scientists said this week that the record melt this year could lead to a cold winter in the UK and Europe, as the heat in the Arctic water will be released into the atmosphere this autumn, potentially affecting the all-important jet stream. While the science is still developing in this area, the Met Office said in May that the reduction in Arctic sea ice was contributing in part to the colder, drier winters the UK has been experiencing in recent years.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... est-extent

[Goober McTuber]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... er-record/

More evidence of climate change.

[The Seer]

[Goober McTuber]

More evidence of climate change.

That is what climates on Earth do, you know. Have you ever heard about something called an ice age? Who is arguing that the climate doesn't change? Why do you want the climate to become static for the first time ever?

When did I say I wanted climate to stay static?

[SG's Son]

More evidence of climate change.

That is what climates on Earth do, you know. Have you ever heard about something called an ice age?

Of course they do. Over thousands of years, dumbfuck.

[R-Jack]

Other than about a 2 week period, this has been one of the coolest summers I've ever seen here.

Death.

Yeah but those two weeks sure as fuck made up for it. How you didn't drown in your own sweat and grease secretions I'll never know. Glad you didn't though.

[LTS TRN 2]

Then what is your point/position? Or are you merely observing that the climate is changing, Marcus Allen style?

No, SS, the clear point is that this time it's not a natural Ice Age cycle at all, but caused directly--and very quickly, a couple hundred years, tops--by our aggressive and reckless approach to industrializing every thing we can, as per a "permanent expansion" model straight from the Ponzi scam of Capitalism--which has driven the whole toxic, planet-killing spree. Got it? Because you seem really stupid and in some tedious Hannity denial. Wake up now.

[R-Jack]

Eat a fist with your anus Feltcho. No one cares

[Jay in Phoenix]

While not a new book,this is a pretty definitive response to the whole climate-change debate.

Crichton was "dead-on", so to speak.

R.I.P.

[Mikey]

Crichton was a hack who wrote pseudo-scientific fantasy.

[Jay in Phoenix]

Crichton was hardly a "hack" Mikey. Perhaps if you actually took the time to read the book, you might at least give some thought as to what he wrote. It isn't like he didn't do any research or cite credible sources of information and fact. Crichton was an avid researcher. And a doctor. He spent a considerable amount of time and effort, as well as science to create that story. And yes, it is just a story. But it is also rather eye-opening when it comes to the hysteria that is generated by governments to rule their populace under the firm grip of fear. It's still going on today and it's much worse. That really was the point of the novel. The use of the concept of global warming was just the set up. And the punch line.

[Mikey]

Well, I do have to admit that the one about the dinosaurs was pretty credible.

[The Seer]

Then what is your point/position? Or are you merely observing that the climate is changing, Marcus Allen style?

No, SS, the clear point is that this time it's not a natural Ice Age cycle at all, but caused directly--and very quickly, a couple hundred years, tops--by our aggressive and reckless approach to industrializing every thing we can, as per a "permanent expansion" model straight from the Ponzi scam of Capitalism--which has driven the whole toxic, planet-killing spree. Got it? Because you seem really stupid and in some tedious Hannity denial. Wake up now.

You were mysteriously silent when your brethren were burning those US flag replicas and filling the air with toxins.

[LTS TRN 2]

What, are you drinking rubbing alcohol as well?

You pathetic puny cowards. Not one of you will dare to actually defend any of the Hannity garbage you're regurgitating.

You have no argument.

You stand with creationist spoor like Palin and Michelle Bachmann and her disgusting gay husband. Do you understand? You're entire grotesque "Tea Bagger" act is as dead and fake as Mitten's candidacy. You're the most cowardly and weak little pukes ever to attempt to speak--which we notice you really don't do very well.

[PSUFAN]

Our climate is definitely changing. Where does that stack up in importance with:

-municipal finances
-transportation infrastructure
-energy policy
-energy infrastructure

...and so on?

[atomicdad]

So that has to be like the reslut of carbon and shit

So you are saying R-Jack's soon to be ex is a mudshark and likes anal?

[Truman]

Exact opposite here

Hottest summer on record then in Sept it rained and magically temps dropped and it feels like fall

Close. '54, '80, and '88 ('sup 88) were hotter.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/eax/?n=drought

[Truman]

How did I know you couldn't let a general statement like "hottest summer ever" just stand on it's own merit?

On a smack board that rages three pages deep parsing the definitions of "homocide" and "murder," and their impact upon history, law, religion and society as a whole? Good luck with that.

Besides, my comment was more directed towards the ‘tards that believe this summer’s hot spell to be “unprecedented.” Lighten up, Nancy…

[Van]

Shit, Tru, I thought you'd go after him over his smackaholicization of 'its/it's,' the differences of which, after all these years, dude still can't seem to grasp.

[Truman]

And risk being "BANNED" from the Warbuck's fourm?!

Scott's pro-longed assault upon Merriam-Webster is Legion.

[Dinsdale]

Scott's pro-longed assault upon Merriam-Webster is Legion.

homocide

Sometimes, it's just time to EJECT.

[Van]

'Homocide' is kinda funny, though, you have to admit.

[Truman]

Scott's pro-longed assault upon Merriam-Webster is Legion.

homocide

Sometimes, it's just time to EJECT.

I wasn't the one grading Scott's papers, Dins...

...But I'll be sure to keep such advice in mind the next time I read one of your late-night BTPCFB offerings.

[Dinsdale]

...But I'll be sure to keep such advice in mind the next time I read one of your late-night BTPCFB offerings.

See, here we have a problem -- the word "rife" doesn't quite cover the errata my late night typing tends to produce.

[Van]

Understandable. It's probably a bit difficult to make out the individual letters on your keyboard amid the Koontz-esque eerily diffused light and lobster-scented effluvia provided by the splayed hamhocks of your latest unconscious conquest.

[Truman]

Actually, we don't, Dins. I'll leave going jihad for illegal use of the language to the board's grammar-nazis. Was simply referencing Scott's notoriety for shrewdly parlaying his spell-checker into 10 shares of Microsoft stock back in the early 90s.

[Truman]

...lobster-scented effluvia provided by the splayed hamhocks of your latest unconscious conquest.

[Van]

Don't mind me. I'm editing right now.

:)

[LTS TRN 2]

Our climate is definitely changing. Where does that stack up in importance with:

-municipal finances
-transportation infrastructure
-energy policy
-energy infrastructure

...and so on?

Not particularly high, because I don't think a compelling case has been made, as yet (I view James Hansen & company's unbroken record of failed near-term predictions as an indicator that their long-term predictions are likely equally full of shit). To me, it comes back to the same three questions:

1. Assume the climate is changing (becoming warmer) more rapidly than would otherwise be normal due to human emissions of carbon dioxide, is the increase in warming necessarily a bad thing? (maybe warming is a good thing)

2. Assume the climate is changing (becoming warmer) more rapidly than would otherwise be normal due to human emissions of carbon dioxide and the increase in warming is a bad thing, is there anything that humans can do to effectively curtail or stop the warming from occurring? (maybe when we cross over yet another of Algore's tipping points it really will be too late to do anything to reverse it)

3. Assume the climate is changing (becoming warmer) more rapidly than would otherwise be normal due to human emissions of carbon dioxide and the increase in warming is a bad thing and there is something that humans can do to effectively curtail or stop the warming from occurring, is the cost of that solution worth the adverse affect it will have on humans? (maybe we could use those ducats for some other purpose, such as taking care of the current inhabitants of the planet and engaging in scientific research to see how we can prosper and live in a warmer climate).

So , you're asking that if indeed we're warming the planet by our industrializing, then...is this really a bad thing? And...can we do anything about it anyway? And...wouldn't we be better off spending the money to halt the damage..on other things?


This is your pathetic excuse for thought and deliberation?

SS, I realize that you're very scared about an imminent collapse of the entire financial and social structure of this nation. You've been very clear on your hysterical fears and I'm sure you've got lots of ammo and canned goods prepared. But...you've no business trotting out this shameless Koch funded gibberish. For example, the basic thrust of "is global warming actually a good thing?" comes straight from the Heartland Institute, a totally fake denial echo chamber from Chicago funded largely by the Kochs. Other sham "experts" (that is, bearing PHDs, but having been bought outright by the Kochs) are the Mercatus Center, the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and the Americans For Prosperity group.

You have no actual sound basis for denying climate Change or for smearing and dismissing the actual (vast majority) of actual climate scientists.

You and your creeping cowardly ilk truly disgust me.

Sherrod Brown for President!!

[Dinsdale]

For example, the basic thrust of "is global warming actually a good thing?" comes straight from the Heartland Institute, a totally fake denial echo chamber from Chicago funded largely by the Kochs.

Actually, that comes straight from OBSERVED DATA, well backed by ice core sampling and fossil records.

What OBSERVED DATA do you have to counter it? And I don't mean the "observed data" that your cult so shamelessly alters to fot their theories, rather than adjusting the theoroes to the observed data.

To call that practice "junk science" would be an insult to junk scientists everywhere. It's much better described as "fraud"... and every last "leader" of your cult is guilty of it... and they brag about doing it, due to the impunity they enjoy within the cult.

[Wolfman]

I may have mentioned this before, but I knew a geology prof at the U of Maine who went to Antarctica as part of the IGY (look it up) to study the ice cap and change. When he got back I asked him what they found. He said half the people decided the ice cap was retreating and half decided it was growing. Looks like not much has changed since then.