Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Pace on Record

[fatty]

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

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Morts

i belive you just stole Subman1's motto

That is true, since you keep proving me right. Your ignorance has allowed others to sell you on something akin to the moon being cheese, and you're happy about it. Glad you pointed that out.

-S

[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.

[Skybird]

Just googled a bit. The earliest hints that I found on the fly for scientists pointing at that global wamring would cause a temporary grow of ice (and other paradoxical effects), may it be in area covered, may it be in thickness of ice, dated back to 1997. However, I googled very short only, the first three pages of results only, and then lost interest. I know that I read about seasonal growing of ice due to warming when I started to study. and that was autmun 1989.

The information is all out there, since quite long. One just needs to want to see it, instead of stucking one's head in the sand, or playing "see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing" with those three chimps. The effects this thread is about, are no surprise. they are no contradiction to global warming. they have been predicted roughly twenty years in advance.

They are evidence for global warming at the poles taking place. Unfortunately they do not have a lobby spending hundreds of millions and even billions to promote them in public and push them in political decision making. That's the decisive difference to climate sceptics, who are in unlimited supply of money.

[CaptainHaplo]

Oh... I saw it on tv - it must be true....

And its amazing to me that I point out how EASY reversing global warming would be (were it a real occurance) and everyone wants to still argue over it like its a problem. You take some sulpher microdust and release it in the proper part of the atmosphere - we have the technology right now to do this - and it will actually form a mostly permanent (and non-harmful) barrier that will reflect about 1% of the sunlight the earth recieves. Current mathematical models - even the ones used by the wacko's that sell you global warming cool-aid - say that a mere 1% decrease in the sunlight hitting the earth would be more than sufficient to reverse what they see as global warming.

Yet you never hear about ideas like this - because the whole "global warming" ithing s not about saving the planet - its about making you change YOUR behavior. Stop driving gas based cars, stop taking nice long hot showers, start recycling your own waste into compost, grow your own food and "get back to nature", put an end to "big business" (and small business too while we are at it - aw heck - get rid of ALL business - its evil anyway) because "business" means someone has something and you need it and its the governments job to give you all your supposed to have anyway - this "free market" stuff might get you off the government breast - and we can't have that. But if government can restrict your freedom of movement, control your ability to communicate and conduct business, it can make you utterly dependant on IT - meaning its assured a permanent place of dominance in your life. Which is the goal.

When I was growing up - the fear was a new ice age - now its the opposite. But every scientist admits that "nuclear winter" is a real thing that could happen. The planet will survive with or without us, but it is our job to be good stewards. Unfortunately - because there are so many countries that do their own thing - aka CHINA - each nationality alone can do little real change in modifying the environment. Even a united continent - Europe, Africa, North or South America alone would do little. So stop telling me not to drive an SUV - and instead talk to the biggest air polluters in the world - again - CHINA. Oh wait - they are communist, keep their people repressed, perform human rights violations out the wazoo - but its ok because they actually are what all the wacko's on the left want to emulate - a government they can control that has total control of their "subjects".

Stop arguing about if its real - find reasonable solutions (like mentioned above) that will solve the issue WITHOUT forcing everyone to change their lives. Do that - and it doesnt matter if its real or not because it can be handled. The fact people dont do that shows that its NOT about saving the environment.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

Stop arguing about if its real - find reasonable solutions (like mentioned above) that will solve the issue WITHOUT forcing everyone to change their lives.

Yes, that is the holy grail of sceptics, isn't it: WE SHALL NOT CHANGE OUR HABITS WE GREW FOND OF. We shall not change our business by which we make our profit this day. We shall not look beyond the most imminent moment. The reality of climate chnage is only an issue if we must not change.

Everybody wants to party, but nobody accepts to do the cleaning.

Or as I wrote less charming some posts above:

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.

[CaptainHaplo]

See Skybird - you prove my point - you would rather change MY life - whether by convincing me of some fallacy, or by regulating my life - than actually discuss SOLUTIONS.

You see - this discussion shows the difference in mindset between us Americans and the rest of the world. We value our personal freedom to the extent that we are willing to consider ideas, but we are NOT willing to let others dictate what we will and won't do. Many, like Skybird (who obviously does not dwell in the US) have grown comfortable with the idea that because "government" or some other group says we should all do something - its ok for it to require changes in his life.

The issue of global warming is one that is very contentious - there are "experts" and truly genuine, reputable scientists on each side. Thats why I, though I don't believe in it myself, accept that its a possibility.

But note what my response was - even though I don't believe the "sky is falling" over the issue - I am willing to look into truly viable solutions. The things that most push for however, are not realistic solutions. Its not that I couldn't implement them on a personal level if I chose, its because even if everyone in the whole "Evil US" did - it wouldn't make a real difference.

Let me give two examples. First you have China - who pollutes worse than every single motorist in the US combined. Even if we were to stop driving our cars immediately and forever, the "man made" carbon introduced into the environment would not decrease to pre-manmade levels. Second - and this is where things like "stop driving petro vehicles" really kills me - all the cows in the US give of more environmentally harmful gas than all the cars in the US combined. So ok - we stop driving - now what - the lefties who want to have total control are going to insist we kill all our cows next?

Skybird - IF it is real - your major concern would not be trying to convince me or trying to tell me how to live - but rather finding ways that YOU could fix the issue without my assistance. Realists know that not everyone is going to agree with them - just like when the first guy said the earth was round. Instead of talking solutions and real fixes, you want to convince me so that I live my life by some arbitrary set of rules (can you say another facet of socialism?) that in reality have no effect other than to grant others a portion of control over my life.

Instead of arguing - why are we not talking solutions? They are there - they can be implimented without everyone - Skybird included - having to change their life. They can be done without causing any harm. They can be done in ways that could even create things like JOBS and people with pride and indepencence. Oh wait - that would be evil wouldn't it?????

Seriously though - lets take this in the direction of solutions. I mentioned one - there are others. Anyone care enough about the issue to find them and post about the pro's and cons to discuss the subject rationally?

[Letum]

So... because you are American, you would only consider solutions that do
not involve combined effort and sacrifice?
No wonder your nation was late in both world wars!

[Skybird]

You take yourself far too important with all that "we do not something just we're being told to do it", and the carussell of "discussing solutions" I see going round and round since yaears and decades now. Both is your arguemnt to deny any chnage in yourself.

But you see, when 1.3 billion Chinese and 1 billion Indians now are on their way to claim the right to live in the same materialistic excesses like less than one billion westerners (480 million EU-citizens and 330 million US Americans), then that means that the level of pollution and planetary exploitation would increase by a factor of three, although those less than 1 billion europeans already were enough to push the planet over the peak and getting us ending up where we currently are. And when less than 5% of the globe's population consumes 40-55% of the global ressources for the american way of life and industry, and creates as much pollution than 3-4 times as many chinese, and both together produce two thirds of the globe's emissions or more, than there is a problem and it means that you have to change indeed. And wether you like that or not, simply is not important, becasue sooner or later you either give in to the growing ecological pressure, or you break.

Obama has studied especially germany very closely, which in many fields of eco-tech is world market leader, and especially he was interested in the jobs that were created by going ecological. This is a great chance for the US, although at germany's massive cost, and I have little doubt that he will try to set the US economy on fresh rails by focussing on creating jobs in the long run in the ecological field. And we talk of several
hundred thousand if not millions of jobs. with the potantial capacity of the US, the US could become world leader in climate protection and producing acording ecological high tech - and creating jobs and have a profutable business of it at the same time. Again, this would be at germany's costs, but since the planetary and clmatic benefit ranks higher in importance, I am willing to accept that as an unavoidable consequence. However, all that hightech does not relieve us from the fact that man and especially americans consumes way too much of eqarth'S ressources, depleting the planet becasue we take more than it can afford, and can replace. Our way of living, our consuming behavior, has to chnage. It is imperative, and espeically formamericans: for nobody else consumes as huge ammounts per heads and wastes ressources as carelessly as the US society.

Our excessive consuming in the West we need to reduce, and reduce drastically. It needs to be reduced to a level where we could say that if all people on the planet would live by our own living standard, the biosphere and the planet still could afford that, and could repklace what we take from it, without reducing it's basis. And china and India and Brazil need to understand that they cannot industrilaise at the cost of making the same mistakes like we did, and moving on on the same 100+ years old ways like our industrialisation did. 'they must put their effort on modern technology from the beginning on, instead of going through 100 years of fossile engines before reaching there. If they don't understand that, our problems will multiply within one generation.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Not to poke at you, but if you know anything about science (And the media gets this wrong all the time by the way), Sea Ice is 'floating' ice. If all the floating ice in the world melted, it has no effect on sea level.

-S

PS. I guess if it had no affect on Sea Level, then it wouldn't be so dramatic now would it?

Precisely! There is controversy in the scientific community about this. With the evidence being clear that global warming or cooling is due to natural cycles, one can only think that some "scientist" support Al Gore in order to get more hoax money to do more hokey "research".

[Stealth Hunter]

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