H
Hydrogen
Guest
You have not read every review, so your statement is severely lacking the necessary evidence - whether you stand by it or not.
|
|
|
- Thread starter billonlogan
- Start date
MisterF
Senior Member
You have yet to provide us with a review that comes to the opposite conclusion, and I know you've looked. Still waiting.
Brandon716
Senior Member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080628/ap_on_sc/sci_north_pole_melt
This summer may see first ice-free North Pole
WASHINGTON - There's a 50-50 chance that the North Pole will be ice-free this summer, which would be a first in recorded history, a leading ice scientist says.
The weather and ocean conditions in the next couple of weeks will determine how much of the sea ice will melt, and early signs are not good, said Mark Serreze. He's a senior researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colo.
The chances for a total meltdown at the pole are higher than ever because the layer of ice coating the sea is thinner than ever, he said.
"A large area at the North Pole and surrounding the North Pole is first-year ice," Serreze said. "That's the stuff that tends to melt out in the summer because it's thin."
Preliminary February and March data from a NASA satellite shows that the circle of ice surrounding the North Pole is "considerably thinner" than scientists have seen during the five years the satellite has been taking pictures, NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally said Friday. He thinks there is slightly less than a 50-50 chance the North Pole will be ice-free.
Last year was a record year for ice melt all over the Arctic and the ice band surrounding the North Pole is even thinner now.
There is nothing scientifically significant about the North Pole, Serreze said. But there is a cultural and symbolic importance. It's home to Santa Claus, after all. Last August, the Northwest Passage was open to navigation for the first time in memory.
A more conservative ice scientist, Cecilia Bitz at the University of Washington, put the odds of a North Pole without ice closer to 1 in 4. Even that is far worse than climate models had predicted, which was 1 in 70 sometime in the next decade, she said.
But both she and Serreze agree it's just a matter of time.
"I would guess within the next 10 year it would happen at least once," Bitz said.
Already, figures from the National Snow and Ice Data Center show sea ice in the Arctic as a whole at about the same level now as it was at its low point last year in late June and early July.
The explanation is a warming climate and a weather phenomenon, scientists said.
For the last couple of decades, there has been a steady melt of Arctic sea ice — which covers only the ocean and which thins during summer and refreezes in winter. In recent years, it has gradually become thinner because more of it has been melting as the Earth's temperature rises.
Then, this past winter, there was a natural weather shift called the Arctic Oscillation, sort of a cold weather cousin to El Nino. That oscillation caused a change in winds and ocean that accelerated a normal flushing of sea ice in the Arctic. That pushed the older thicker sea ice that had been over the North Pole south toward Greenland and eventually out of the Arctic, Serreze said. That left just a thin one-year layer of ice that previously covered part of Siberia.
This summer may see first ice-free North Pole
WASHINGTON - There's a 50-50 chance that the North Pole will be ice-free this summer, which would be a first in recorded history, a leading ice scientist says.
The weather and ocean conditions in the next couple of weeks will determine how much of the sea ice will melt, and early signs are not good, said Mark Serreze. He's a senior researcher at the National Snow and Ice Data Center and the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colo.
The chances for a total meltdown at the pole are higher than ever because the layer of ice coating the sea is thinner than ever, he said.
"A large area at the North Pole and surrounding the North Pole is first-year ice," Serreze said. "That's the stuff that tends to melt out in the summer because it's thin."
Preliminary February and March data from a NASA satellite shows that the circle of ice surrounding the North Pole is "considerably thinner" than scientists have seen during the five years the satellite has been taking pictures, NASA ice scientist Jay Zwally said Friday. He thinks there is slightly less than a 50-50 chance the North Pole will be ice-free.
Last year was a record year for ice melt all over the Arctic and the ice band surrounding the North Pole is even thinner now.
There is nothing scientifically significant about the North Pole, Serreze said. But there is a cultural and symbolic importance. It's home to Santa Claus, after all. Last August, the Northwest Passage was open to navigation for the first time in memory.
A more conservative ice scientist, Cecilia Bitz at the University of Washington, put the odds of a North Pole without ice closer to 1 in 4. Even that is far worse than climate models had predicted, which was 1 in 70 sometime in the next decade, she said.
But both she and Serreze agree it's just a matter of time.
"I would guess within the next 10 year it would happen at least once," Bitz said.
Already, figures from the National Snow and Ice Data Center show sea ice in the Arctic as a whole at about the same level now as it was at its low point last year in late June and early July.
The explanation is a warming climate and a weather phenomenon, scientists said.
For the last couple of decades, there has been a steady melt of Arctic sea ice — which covers only the ocean and which thins during summer and refreezes in winter. In recent years, it has gradually become thinner because more of it has been melting as the Earth's temperature rises.
Then, this past winter, there was a natural weather shift called the Arctic Oscillation, sort of a cold weather cousin to El Nino. That oscillation caused a change in winds and ocean that accelerated a normal flushing of sea ice in the Arctic. That pushed the older thicker sea ice that had been over the North Pole south toward Greenland and eventually out of the Arctic, Serreze said. That left just a thin one-year layer of ice that previously covered part of Siberia.
Brandon716
Senior Member
He's a professional b.s. artist, but I give Hydrogen credit where credit is due. When it comes to anti-global warming propaganda and half-truth science, he delivers some of the best and creative works of art out there.
Its only when it comes to truth that he falls flat on his face, but he's certainly free to make that decision. I applaud his creativity. Not everyone acts like they are a master of the trade and talks down to everyone else with such certainty and condescending swagger when they really are so wrong.
On another note, HAPPY PRIDE '08!
MisterF
Senior Member
lol, right back at ya. I'm going to go celebrate Pride '08 by having sex with my girlfriendHe's a professional b.s. artist, but I give Hydrogen credit where credit is due. When it comes to anti-global warming propaganda and half-truth science, he delivers some of the best and creative works of art out there.
Its only when it comes to truth that he falls flat on his face, but he's certainly free to make that decision. I applaud his creativity. Not everyone acts like they are a master of the trade and talks down to everyone else with such certainty and condescending swagger when they really are so wrong.
On another note, HAPPY PRIDE '08!
H
Hydrogen
Guest
There is nothing clear about what you said. Have you or have you not read every single peer-reviewed review article? Yes or no?
As I have pointed out to you on the other thread, a majority of articles on climate change make no attribution whatsoever to human causation - particularly those dealing with paleoclimatology (get it?). The study of climate and climate change is a multidisciplinary activity. Some articles will mention possible human attribution, but many take no position either way. This would be obvious to you had you actually read some articles on the subject.
Also, you appear to miss the obvious when you point out that a majority of review articles on the specific subject of human impact on climate actually discuss human-caused climate change. No kidding?
Any article that indicates factors other than a supposed human causation (such as solar, changes in global cloud cover, changes in multi-decadal ocean oscillations, etc), in essence, questions and undermines that assertion. And when considering the great degree of climate variation over the Holocene period, and the rather poor correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature, you might want to reconsider your excessively political adhesion to your position.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
You are calling me a bullshit artist. That's a personal attack, would you not say Brandon? Have things gotten so under your skin that this is all that you have left to resort to? Otherwise, your post shows nothing new.
Read this. Note the conclusion.
http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu:8080/~igor/research/data/sat_slp.php
Journal Article:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/.../1520-0442(2003)016<2067:VATOAT>2.0.CO;2&ct=1
A history of long-term variability:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2004JC002851.shtml
ganjavih
Senior Member
Guys, we've been through this before and we know it goes nowhere. Let's just leave it.
Brandon716
Senior Member
Yes the discussion has certainly went full circle. People can read for themselves and make their own individual minds up on the issue, there's plenty of material out there.
MisterF
Senior Member
To the question in bold, I answered it in the other thread. As for the second paragraph, I'll amend the sentence: every peer-reviewed literature review that takes a position on the subject of human-caused climate change concludes that it's a reality. All your other points have been addressed in the other thread.
adma
Superstar
Yeah, those Liberal spin doctors will try anything to make Dion electable
Dan416
Senior Member
I would expect someone with a username like "Hydrogen" to be able to write CO2 properly, and not as "C02". It aggravates me to no end to see C02 or H20. It's CO2 and H2O. O = Oxygen, not 0 as in zero.
Edit: That said, I haven't read the whole thread but I support the basic idea of a carbon tax.
Edit: That said, I haven't read the whole thread but I support the basic idea of a carbon tax.
Brandon716
Senior Member
Yeah, those Liberal spin doctors will try anything to make Dion electable
Spin it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMwdAc1Dzfg
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Yes, a truly terrible crime by someone who tends to type very quickly. But then what would a username have to do with such a typing error? And why so terribly aggravated?
These are your words:
http://www.urbantoronto.ca/showthread.php?t=9362&page=3 Post #32.
Other interesting reading:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v361/n6410/abs/361335a0.html
Dan416
Senior Member
Calling yourself "Hydrogen" implies some knowledge of Chemistry, and people versed in the sciences should know the proper writing of H2O and CO2, since the O stands for Oxygen, not for 0xygen or 0 (zero).
It's nitpicking, and I've seen the error before, but it nevertheless bothers me. It's like "your" when you mean "you're", or "too" instead of "to", or "shouldn't of" instead of "shouldn't have". Same thing.