Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Pace on Record

[SUBMAN1]

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13385

What we didn't already know unless you drink the Al Gore Koolaid.

-S

[MothBalls]

I guess you missed the part where he said "hot areas will get hotter and cold areas will get colder". You just proved his point.

Maybe you should at least taste the punch before declaring it to be poison. Did you even watch the movie?

,edit.

Did you read the article you linked to?

Bill Chapman, a researcher with the Arctic Climate Center at the University of Illinois, says the rapid increase is "no big deal". He says that, while the Arctic has certainly been colder in recent months, the long-term decrease is still ongoing. Chapman, who predicts that sea ice will soon stop growing, sees nothing in the recent data to contradict predictions of global warming.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

I guess you missed the part where he said "hot areas will get hotter and cold areas will get colder". You just proved his point.

Maybe you should at least taste the punch before declaring it to be poison. Did you even watch the movie?

Hardly. Did you notice he only fed you 300 years of data - approximately the lowest point of our mini ice age until now? Or did he fail to mention the glacier melt that has been steady and started before the use of hydrocarbons? NO! He conveniently left that part out.

So hows your Kool Aid? You swallowed a ton of it.

-S

[Skybird]

Yawn.

Once again, second run:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v...df/ngeo338.pdf

[mrbeast]

Don't sweat it Mothballs, he never fully reads the articles he posts.

I seem to remember a similar thread where the author of the article Subman posted acually admitted in a postscript that the evidence that he had used to support about 90% of his argument was in fact wrong; didn't stop ol' Subman from running with it though, despite me drawing his attention to it several times.

[Morts]

Originally Posted by mrbeast

Don't sweat it Mothballs, he never fully reads the articles he posts.

I seem to remember a similar thread where the author of the article Subman posted acually admitted in a postscript that the evidence that he had used to support about 90% of his argument was in fact wrong; didn't stop ol' Subman from running with it though, despite me drawing his attention to it several times.

selective reading:rotfl: :rotfl:

[Letum]

There is a important difference between weather and climate.

[fatty]

Question: how does the ice breaking off from the shelves and floating freely factor in to sea ice levels?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by fatty

Question: how does the ice breaking off from the shelves and floating freely factor in to sea ice levels?

Ice floating displaces the exact same amount of water that it is in itself water - something the media can't figure out as well as some others that I see. From a shelf however, if that shelf is land based, then you have something displacing water that was once not of that water, so in effect, you are adding water to water and it will rise.

This is not happening in the last year in either Antarctica or Alaska since both land masses are increasing their glacier ice like never before recorded. Alaska in particular has added more ice than it lost to its most famous glaciers for the first time in recorded history.

-S

[MothBalls]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Ice floating displaces the exact same amount of water that it is in itself water - something the media can't figure out as well as some others that I see. From a shelf however, if that shelf is land based, then you have something displacing water that was once not of that water, so in effect, you are adding water to water and it will rise.

This is not happening in the last year in either Antarctica or Alaska since both land masses are increasing their glacier ice like never before recorded. Alaska in particular has added more ice than it lost to its most famous glaciers for the first time in recorded history.

-S

Here's a visual of what whatshisname just said:
http://www.teachersdomain.org/resour...c.icesimulate/

If you read the [ENTIRE] article with this link, you'll also notice:

However, although the melting of floating ice doesn't significantly affect sea level, there are other consequences. Variations in salinity and temperature drive global ocean circulation because of density differences; fresh water is less dense than salt water and warm water is less dense than cold water. This thermohaline circulation is sometimes referred to as the great ocean "conveyor belt" because it is one of Earth's main mechanisms for transporting energy.

Now you have to factor in the Global Ocean Conveyor:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin....html&edu=high


The problem [I see] with the whole global warming debate is that there's so many inter-related systems at work, so many data points to consider, and so many variables that change every time you change any one data point, it's easy to extrapolate data to prove your point. For or against, you can always come up with "proof" you are correct.

Nobody knows for sure. If you think you're right, you're full of chit.

That always leads me back to, we should just change the things that we can. If there is a possibility that we are having a negative impact on the environment we should do what we can to mitigate those affects.

Stop burning fossil fuels and start developing renewable energy would be a good starting point.

[Skybird]

Some people are eternally calling for infinite ammounts of information (and then always some more), they claim that that way we should gain more education, but at the same time they are forever determined to ignore it right away anyway, since for them the solution lies in pacifying their troubled mind and convince themselves that it is okay to live on like they use to do, since there is no need to be worried or to change something, and so: round and round the carussel goes, and except the same "reasonable argument" of why more information is needed, no other talking is ever being done - but this one talking ad nauseum.

Has anybody even cared to read and try to understand what the article I linked is about? It is about a change in methodology that allowed them first time ever to do a meta-analysis that compares observation data not with generalised data as usual models produce them, but to compare them explicitly on the basis of just those cells of models that correspondent with the cells of observed data. That way they were able to delete the influence of intemittend and third variables, allowing them to attribute changes of climate being found in studies to just one simple cause: the human variable. Other variables may exist, but theirninfluence is not decisive. It is a question of methodology and thus the important thing is a bit hidden and does not sound sensational, but in fact it is a complete new level of analysis quality.

The question wether or not the warming at the pole is man-caused, must no longer be asked.

You guys can carry on to just ignore the unwelcomed news and make demands for more study and information, but that does not make you any smarter, while the climate issue - caused by man! - continues to unfold, completely unimpressed by your "reasonable scepticism".

the irony here is: the data you always demand - already is there. You just have not heared the shot, because you don't want to hear it. According to the motto: a problem I don't care about, is a problem that does not exist anymore. Out of sight - out of mind.

Beginning of this week there was a TV film, a 15-20 minute article in a TV-magazine about the lobbying industry at the EU headquarters in Brussel. The size of this lobbying is frightening, it outclasses the whole political and bureaucratical administration of the EU in size. Dozens of billions are spend by the industry for lobbying, to prevent any laws and regulations that a given company does not like. The anti-climate lobby is one of the biggest factions in lobbying, and one of the greatest spenders. Billions get spend on campaings and pseudo-scientific structures and institutions that are then used to replace the real scientific institutions, and to change the latter's scientific literature and data with propaganda material that gives the impression to be scientific, but is not, and is manipulative and suggestive instead. Lobbying itself has grown into one of the greatest businesses on this planet. No other administration gets as massively targetted by it than the EU, not in Asia, not the (also heavily targetted) US congress. And American companies and their lobbying representations are the major players in the game.

seeing these eternal round-and-round debates about doubting the human factor in climate change in order to prevent changes that would effect short termed profit interests, I must say that obviously it is billions very well spend, from the industry's position. I knew that it were several hundred millions per year being spent on it, but that it actually reaches into the several billions, was new for me.

Climate scepticism - in plain English: f#ck off, I do not want to change my way of life, it does not matter what happens when I'm gone.

[fatty]

Ok, I misunderstood what an ice shelf is. I didn't realize that it was already floating on water. I was curious to see how the enormous chunk that broke off of Ellesmere Island late this summer might have skewed the results.

[XabbaRus]

I was watching an interesting programme on TV the other day. It was explaining that the amount of Arctic ice isn't dependent on how cool the winters are but on how warm the summers are.

What subman seems to be not accepting is that human activity is accelerating global warming. No one is denying that the earth does warm up and cool down but that we are exacerbating it. And just like one swallow doesn't make a summer, one season of arctic ice increase does not disprove the climate change theory.

All articles I have read have said that even if there is a seasonal increase in sea ice the overall trend, is that it is reducing, so that even with the seasonal increase there is still less ice overall.

[Safe-Keeper]

Yawn.

It's SUBMAN. Originality has never been part of his modus operandi.

Well, evolution is still controversial, so Creation must be true...

Don't you just love the logic?

1. I think it was Jason who stole the cookie from my cookie jar.
2. I'm not exactly sure how he did it.
3. Therefore, it must've been God!

[VipertheSniper]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

sulpher-oxide

You think that's gonna do no harm? How about acid rain?