dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1839
share rss forum feed


lugnut

@look.ca

[Weather] Arctic sea ice melts to record low

»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201···?cmp=rss

quote:
“The thaw this year broke all the records that we had previous to this and it didn’t just break them, it smashed them," Barber told CBC News.

“The Arctic is changing so rapidly right now and that is connected to our global climate system, so it’s really a precursor to what is coming for the rest of the planet and it really should be an eye-opener for people.”

Scientists say that at this rate there could be an ice-free Arctic as early as the summer of 2015.


I guess milder, shorter winters and longer, hotter summers are going to be the norm in Canada from now on...


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1

Smashed all recorded temperatures?

How long have we been keeping temperature records and how old is the earth?

This would be like comparing the results of the last week of an 80 year old man to his life...


booj

join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON

said by vue666:

Smashed all recorded temperatures?

How long have we been keeping temperature records and how old is the earth?

This would be like comparing the results of the last week of an 80 year old man to his life...

Great insight there Vue. Records are a matter of record, everyone knows they don't go back indefinitely.
Expand your moderator at work


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to booj

Re: [Weather] Arctic sea ice melts to record low

said by booj:

said by vue666:

Smashed all recorded temperatures?

How long have we been keeping temperature records and how old is the earth?

This would be like comparing the results of the last week of an 80 year old man to his life...

Great insight there Vue. Records are a matter of record, everyone knows they don't go back indefinitely.

But that's not my point now is it...

There was a time on our earth when crocidiles swam at the north pole but there is never a mention of that fact in these types of articles...

»esci.unco.edu/faculty/shellito/p···st1.html

»qbit.cc/when-crocodiles-roamed-the-arctic/


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1

More on crocidiles at the Arctic....

»www.polarfield.com/blog/arctic-f···-eocene/

quote:
More than 45 million years ago, the area we know as the Arctic was saturated in carbon dioxide (roughly 1,200 parts per million). Scientists studying that time period agree that the region was dominated by lush deciduous forests and animals that require tropical environments; crocodiles, turtles; thrived in waters that now sustain polar bears.


booj

join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON
reply to vue666

said by vue666:

said by booj:

said by vue666:

Smashed all recorded temperatures?

How long have we been keeping temperature records and how old is the earth?

This would be like comparing the results of the last week of an 80 year old man to his life...

Great insight there Vue. Records are a matter of record, everyone knows they don't go back indefinitely.

But that's not my point now is it...

There was a time on our earth when crocidiles swam at the north pole but there is never a mention of that fact in these types of articles...

»esci.unco.edu/faculty/shellito/p···st1.html

»qbit.cc/when-crocodiles-roamed-the-arctic/

It's never mentioned because it's an irrelevant fact. If you can explain it's relevancy, I'm all ears. Your folksy attitude to global warming isn't constructive debate.


Hydraglass
Premium
join:2002-05-08
Kingston, ON

2 recommendations

said by booj:

It's never mentioned because it's an irrelevant fact. If you can explain it's relevancy, I'm all ears. Your folksy attitude to global warming isn't constructive debate.

His quote is regarding "climate change happened a LOT when humans weren't present - so what if it's happening while we are present - it's not unexpected that climate changes happen".

And while climate scaremongers say "oh it's happening ever so fast - we've never seen anything like it" - no one really knows exactly how fast all of the shifts like these happened before - did the arctic go from crocodiles to polar bears in 10 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? It's very hard to tell or know... so while it may appear that we're having climate shift "like never before" - no - "we're having climate shift like never before in the last few hundred years"...

So the question becomes "should we bother trying to fight it, or is our CO2 emissions and industrial complex ALL of the cause, PART of the cause, or just a SMALL BLIP on the cause" - and if it's just a part of the cause or a small blip on the cause, is it worth trying to fight it when it's going to happen anyway - just like it has thousands of times before in the earth's 4 billion year history. It's only if it is "all of the cause" that it's worth the battle - because then it might be a battle we could win.. otherwise, we're just along for the ride no matter what we do - and it may mean big changes ahead - but, hopefully we're smarter than the dinosaurs or other creatures of previous climate changes and can figure out how to survive a little longer - since we know how to build shelter, move where climate is better, survive in places where other creatures couldn't, etc.


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
reply to lugnut

Quick, get the oil rigs out there, start drilling for Natural Gas, we need to destroy more of our environment to become a "Energy Super power".



vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1

I suspect if we don't China, Russia and the US will... So better us then them...



vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to booj

said by booj:
It's never mentioned because it's an irrelevant fact.

It's never mentioned because it will decrease the fear and guilt factor that man is to blame...


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to booj

said by booj:

Great insight there Vue. Records are a matter of record, everyone knows they don't go back indefinitely.

More involved article here.

»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201···eat.html

They are mainly referring to satellite data, which actually only goes back a few decades. And while everyone knows they only go back a certain degree, caution needs to be exercised about "freaking out" over modern changes. Indicative of mankind induced global warming? Sure. Sounds plausible to me. Again not necessarily reason to suddenly panic.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

said by Ian:

suddenly panic.

OH MY GOD HOW DO WE REPACK THIS ICE!?

Is there any way we can build giant freezers and ship them to the arctic to re-freeze the ice?


Kalford
Seems To Be An Rtfm Problem.
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-20
Ontario
kudos:1

said by urbanriot:

said by Ian:

suddenly panic.

OH MY GOD HOW DO WE REPACK THIS ICE!?

Is there any way we can build solar powered giant freezers and ship them to the arctic to re-freeze the ice?

now you can get a research grant to find out.

Walter Dnes

join:2008-01-27
Thornhill, ON
reply to lugnut

11,000 years ago, at the peak of the ice age, what is now Toronto was covered by a layer of ice 2 miles thick. For the past 11,000 years, Arctic ice coverage has been generally decreasing, with a few minor speed bumps along the way, like the Little Ice Age. What exactly is your point?



Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to Ian

I don't think the words "panic" or "freaking out" appeared anywhere until you brought them up. The article says what it says, which is that Arctic ice is melting faster than models were projecting, and we are closer than we thought to the Arctic being completely free of summer sea ice. Since the Arctic is subject to strong feedbacks as the ice cover recedes, it's both an important bellwether and direct influence on global climate change. It has the potential to affect local and global circulation changes and create weather systems that are both more extreme and more persistent than normal. In fact unstable weather is already increasingly becoming the new normal. And, although the most accurate observations of ice extent comes from satellite observations going back a little more than 30 years, we can reconstruct the Arctic temperature record going back thousands, just as we can with the global record.

said by Hydraglass:

His quote is regarding "climate change happened a LOT when humans weren't present - so what if it's happening while we are present - it's not unexpected that climate changes happen".

And while climate scaremongers say "oh it's happening ever so fast - we've never seen anything like it" - no one really knows exactly how fast all of the shifts like these happened before

The first sentence is simplisitic and basically meaningless, and the second one is not true. The resolution of past temperature records is sufficient to give us a good picture of how the climate has behaved in the past, what the major climate drivers have been, and the magnitude of their forcings. What is happening now is entirely unprecedented since long before the evolution of the human species. The last million years of climate has been dominated by regular glaciation cycles of roughly 100Ky duration with CO2 varying between a minimum of about 180 ppm to a maximum of around 280, and never more than 300 ppm, with climate systems tracking accordingly. These regular climate swings are the signature climate behaviour of the planet to which we and our ecosystem are adapted. That climate dynamic is gone forever. Not "under threat", or "vulnerable", but gone. CO2 levels are now almost 100 ppm higher than the maximum of any interglacial, and in fact higher than at any time in probably the past 15 million years when the earth was a completely different place, virtually an alien ecosystem in which no humans existed. Both of the attached charts show the historic variability of CO2 suddenly replaced by a vertical line going straight up representing the accumulated emissions of the post-industrial era, with no end in sight. Furthermore, CO2 is only part of the contributor to anthopogenic warming -- other causes are methane and other GHG emissions, land use changes, and other consequences of human activity. We're in uncharted waters, a new climate era sometimes called the Anthropocene (which means literally "the new era of man"). The temperature and the atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems are just beginning to respond. We are nowhere even close to equilibrium for this level of CO2, and the level is increasing by some 30 billion metric tonnes every year.

How we know this definitively, and where this will take us and what we should do about it, is another discussion entirely, a discussion which might go on somewhere -- just as a random guess -- for almost three years and 2,283 posts! Or you can read the IPCC Fourth Assessment reports, particularly Working Group 1 which covers the physical science, and there are many good papers available free from the US National Academy of Sciences.






--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

AndrewW

join:2009-03-07
Toronto, ON
kudos:1

1 edit
reply to lugnut

said by lugnut :

»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201···?cmp=rss

quote:
“The thaw this year broke all the records that we had previous to this and it didn’t just break them, it smashed them," Barber told CBC News.

“The Arctic is changing so rapidly right now and that is connected to our global climate system, so it’s really a precursor to what is coming for the rest of the planet and it really should be an eye-opener for people.”

Scientists say that at this rate there could be an ice-free Arctic as early as the summer of 2015.


I guess milder, shorter winters and longer, hotter summers are going to be the norm in Canada from now on...

While the Arctic ice cover is shrinking, the Antarctic ice cover is actually increasing.

Furthermore, if we restrict the discussion to the Holocene period, proxy evidence suggests that the warmest period in the Arctic occurred between 10,000 and 6,000 years ago, peaking about 7,500 years ago (known as the HTM or Holocene Thermal Maximum) with an average temperature about 2 to 4 degrees warmer then today. The Arctic was largely seasonally ice free during this period and the polar bears survived. The climate has largely been cooling since then with relatively brief warmer periods. Note that these paleo-climate studies are site and methodology biased producing slightly different numbers but they generally agree with the above theme. So a mostly summer ice free Arctic is not unprecedented territory nor are we in uncharted waters as some have claimed.


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8

said by AndrewW:

While the Arctic ice cover is shrinking, the Antarctic ice cover is actually increasing.

Absolutely false. The claim that Antarctic ice is increasing is based on observations of sea ice, not the all-important ice sheets. Sea ice is mostly seasonal and has shown some growth because of factors like increased precipitation and freshwater from melting of the ice sheets, and stratospheric cooling in part from ozone losses. The loss of Antarctic ice sheet surface mass balance has actually been accelerating at the rate of more than 14.5 Gt/yr**2 and is now losing on the order of as much as 300 Gt/year in some years. Greenland and the Antarctic together, in fact, are major contributors to sea level rise because of the ice loss.

There are dozens of papers on the subject... this is one:
»ps.uci.edu/scholar/velicogna/fil···2011.pdf




Your comment on the Holocene Maximum is irrelevant as it was not associated with any of the factors happening today. It disproportionately affected the Arctic probably due to a phase of Milankovitch cycles, and globally was cooler than today overall. Nor were the temperature gradients anywhere even remotely like what we are experiencing today -- the total temperature excursion during the entire HTM was less than the warming we've caused in just last 100 years.

I never claimed that an ice-free Arctic summer was unprecedented. I said that the current CO2 levels were totally unprecedented -- certainly during the entire period of regular 100Ky glaciation, and probably in some 15 million years. Nothing like this has happened since the dawn of humanity. This is indeed uncharted territory.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

AndrewW

join:2009-03-07
Toronto, ON
kudos:1

1 recommendation

Wow, I say Antarctic ice cover is actually increasing and you say Antarctic sea ice “has shown some growth” yet my statement is totally false.

As for my comment on the Holocene, I think it is totally relevant as I was responding not to you but to the OP and his take on the CBC story that Arctic ice was at a record low and I was showing otherwise.

Your assertion that “globally was cooler than today overall” is unproven, despite what some models and Milankovitch cycle theory adherents claim.

As for temperature excursions some sites in Siberia show average temperatures about 4 degrees higher then today during the HTM and one site in Greenland a temperature increase of 7 degrees in 50 years.

As for CO2 levels they may be unprecedented for humans but not for the planet nor its ecosystem. Your earlier claim that we had an “alien ecosystem” 15 million years ago is sheer rubbish. Many species living and flourishing today predate that period.



Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8

1 edit

Wow, indeed. Apparently you don't understand the difference between seasonal sea ice and the vast continental ice sheets that are the dominant form of Antarctic ice. The evidence of accelerating Antarctic ice melt is in the graph right in front of you. Instead of continuing to misrepresent the facts, read the paper I linked. There are many others.

Maybe some basic factual exposition would be conducive to a better understanding of the subject matter here.

Fact #1: Antarctic sea ice is unimportant either as a bellweather of climate change (or of sea level rise, obviously), because the sea ice is almost entirely seasonal -- it forms in the winter and floats off northward and pretty much all melts every summer. The Antarctic is a continent surrounded by ocean where the sea ice is extremely mobile. This is the exact opposite of the Arctic which is largely ocean surrounded by land.

The important indicator of Antarctic trends is the massive continental ice sheets which are losing mass at a huge and accelerating rate. The Antarctic is also more insulated from overall planetary warming and less sensitive to climate change but that's beside the point. The Antarctic overall is losing ice mass, period. And losing it fast, at rates that are quite well quantified. Any other claim reflects either lack of knowledge or intentional deception.

Fact #2: Whether the HTM was warmer than today or not is an irrelevant red herring. If you take the average of eight major 12Ky reconstructions, it wasn't, but if you pick one you like better, you can show otherwise, with no greater or less credibility. It's ultimately completely irrelevant because the causes were completely unrelated to anything going on today and mainly based on orbitally-induced insolation changes. It also mainly affected high latitudes and had a much different distribution than contemporary warming being driven by GHG's. Some info on that here. In fact bringing up the HTM at all is just about as pointless as bringing up the Medieval Warm Period, another denialist favourite.

When articles like the one in the OP talk about Arctic devastation from global warming being "unprecedented", I think the term could be fairly interpreted to mean "unprecedented in recorded history", and that something that happened 10,000 years ago for entirely different reasons doesn't change the validity of the statement.

Fact #3: Local and regional climate is not global climate. The fact that high-latitude insolation caused some point in Siberia to be 4 deg. warmer than today during the HTM (other Arctic areas were even warmer) or that some isolated site had a rapid temperature increase says nothing at all about the global climate. The importance of the fact that the present temperature increase is both extremely rapid and globally synchronous cannot be understated. That, and its relation to the unprecedented increases in post-industrial atmospheric CO2 is what this is all about.

Fact #4: The risks posed by anthropogenic global warming are entirely related to the stresses imposed by the extremely rapid rate of change, and little to do with long-term equilibrium points. First there are ecosystem stresses. Everything living today is adapted to its local climate, and the destabilization of ecosystem balances and adaptations can have catastrophic results and even lead to ecosystem tipping points. Second there are physical climate system stresses. Rapid changes in atmosphere and ocean circulation systems lead to weather extremes, powerful storms, long-term changes to regional climate, and general destabilization. And there, too, there is strong evidence that the earth's climate systems operate in terms of tipping points that create sudden and severe changes to large geographic areas.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan



Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to Wolfie00

said by Wolfie00:

The article says what it says, which is that Arctic ice is melting faster than models were projecting, ....

Whoah!!! Someone made a computer model and it turned out to have something predicted wrong? Wow, my head is exploding! Truly amazing, that is! Hope we're not say....relying on these models to accurately predict conditions really far out or anything.
said by Wolfie00:


...and we are closer than we thought to the Arctic being completely free of summer sea ice.

Much as it was 1,000 years ago during the MWP, and 9,000 years ago? Sure. Arctic sea ice is not something that is perfectly understood.

Very pretty graph that shows the CO2 levels back a few hundred thousand years. What was Stone Age Man and our Primate ancestors using to power their electricity plants and cars?

We're all well aware that the results of a modern technological society have no earlier precedent on the planet. Unless, that is, you're a believer in the theories proposed in the "Ancient Aliens" series on the History Channel.
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong

booj

join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON

said by Ian:

said by Wolfie00:

The article says what it says, which is that Arctic ice is melting faster than models were projecting, ....

Whoah!!! Someone made a computer model and it turned out to have something predicted wrong? Wow, my head is exploding! Truly amazing, that is! Hope we're not say....relying on these models to accurately predict conditions really far out or anything.

One day you might realize that climate scientists model things conservatively. Usually in order not to sound alarmist. Sadly it lets quacks like you turn around and say the model was wrong.


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1

quote:
Sadly it lets quacks like you turn around and say the model was wrong.
Why must threads like these always degrade into name calling and insulting?

People simply have differing opinions on this topic... Why can't we respect not everyone agrees or disagrees or is skeptical of "the science"?


Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
kudos:3
reply to booj

said by booj:

One day you might realize that climate scientists model things conservatively. Usually in order not to sound alarmist. Sadly it lets quacks like you turn around and say the model was wrong.

Uh huh. All Climate Scientists? Or just some? And which models? I was more or less joking. But there is an over-reliance on "modeling" in the field. And a necessary over-reliance at that. Turns out we only have the one planet to experiment on at the moment for realz. So we don't actually know what the conditions would be like on the one we have under any given hypothetical conditions. So we make educated guesses at it. To what extent these educated guesses are themselves conservative or alarmist, I couldn't say.

In any case, this wasn't me, a "quack", pointing out that certain models were "wrong". It was the cited article, and scientists quoted therein. Thanks for playing though!
--
“Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.” – David Wong


Wolfie00
My dog is an elitist
Premium
join:2005-03-12
kudos:8
reply to Ian

said by Ian:

Whoah!!! Someone made a computer model and it turned out to have something predicted wrong? Wow, my head is exploding! Truly amazing, that is! Hope we're not say....relying on these models to accurately predict conditions really far out or anything.

So the expectation is that to be useful, a model must always be exactly correct not only in all of its primary predictions, but all the second-order and third-order effects as well?

The only thing of interest here is that we have yet another example of that alleged bastion of "alarmism", the IPCC, being overly conservative in its estimations. It's a wonder that your head isn't exploding!

said by Ian:

said by Wolfie00:


...and we are closer than we thought to the Arctic being completely free of summer sea ice.

Much as it was 1,000 years ago during the MWP

A ridiculously unsupportable claim, particularly since the MWP was neither globally synchronous nor was it nearly as warm as today in most of the regions affected. Many parts of the Arctic were significantly cooler than today.

said by Ian:

Very pretty graph that shows the CO2 levels back a few hundred thousand years. What was Stone Age Man and our Primate ancestors using to power their electricity plants and cars?

One of your less lucid comments and I'm not even sure what it means. The main point of that graph is to show the cyclic and remarkably well-bounded nature of CO2 fluctuations during glacial cycles, reflecting a systematic and consistent transfer between carbon sinks and the atmosphere. Which leads nicely to the following...

said by Ian:

We're all well aware that the results of a modern technological society have no earlier precedent on the planet.

Are we? "Modern technological society" is not the point here. The point is the rapid transfer into the atmosphere of very ancient and essentially permanent carbon stores that have been locked away for hundreds of millions of years, and suddenly re-introducing them into the planet's active carbon cycle at the rate of some 30 billion metric tons per year. Which is a terrific strategy if the plan is to recreate the climate of the Mesozoic, and to do so with all the careful diligence of performing brain surgery with a sledgehammer.
--
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts."
Daniel Patrick Moynihan


vue666
Small block Chevies rule
Premium
join:2007-12-07
Halifax, NS
kudos:1
reply to lugnut

Well IF the Arctic ice is indeed going to diminish why not look at the positives that are to be gained instead of the negatives?

Surely it will help shipping lanes and open up new areas for mineral exploration just to name a few...

So instead of dwelling on all the negative stuff lets look at what maybe gained...



Robert
Premium
join:2002-03-11
St John'S, NL

1 recommendation

Ken I love how the world is so simplistic and very black and white to you.

By your logic, let's look at the positives to my neighbors car getting broken into: new permanent hole where the side window use to be. Constant fresh air!!
--
It's one thing to listen to an idiot talk. As soon as you respond, there are now 2 idiots having a conversation.