1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

About that artic sea ice...

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by dogtowner, Oct 8, 2016.

  1. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,076
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
  2. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63
    What hoax?

    http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

    "Compared to some other years, the growth rate since the seasonal minimum has been quite rapid. The ice growth has been predominantly in the central Arctic Ocean and the East Siberian Sea sector. There has been little ice growth in the Laptev and Kara Seas, and ice has actually retreated in the Barents Sea."
     
  3. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    17,076
    Likes Received:
    1,372
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Sec 9 Row J Seat 1 @ VCU home games
    Preduction: gone by September (last month)
    Reality: bigger than usual

    Has it been bigger ? Sure. Ebbs and flows and always has. Point is when you are claiming science and your basis is agenda, you shoot yourself in the foot a lot. All the time for warmers.
     
  4. Old_Trapper70

    Old_Trapper70 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2014
    Messages:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    238
    Trophy Points:
    63

    As usual, you missed the part of the article, and since you did not read it, that proves you to be ignorant. Like Antarctica, the interior ice is growing somewhat, however, the outer edges (as I posted) are not. If you had actually read the article you would have seen where the ice is shrinking at 13.3% per year.

    Give it up Dog, you are never right. You just pass along more *********.
     
  5. rz3300

    rz3300 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2016
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I actually watched a little documentary like thing the other day about the ice melting, and it was very alarming. Of course you will get information from both sides and it leaves you questioning what is right, but some of the evidence they are giving is pretty shocking, like speeding up the melting 2000%. That one hit home.
     
  6. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    469
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    All aboard: Cruise through the once-impassable Northwest Passage


    Time to shift the conversation to, "Oh, we know global warming is real, of course it is, it has been going on for centuries. It's just that humans have nothing to do with it."
     
  7. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,529
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This is a gold standard reconstruction of arctic temperatures over the past 1o,ooo years taken from ice cores collected above the arctic circle...take a good look and tell me what you think the arctic of the present might look like if compared to the arctic of the bulk of the past 10,o00 years....then tell me what you find alarming about the present.

    And tell me PLC1...what percentage of the past 10K years do you think the sea voyage you just mentioned would have been possible? Looks like most of it if you ask me.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    469
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    Interesting and looking and sciency and all, but the last ice free arctic predates human existence.
     
  9. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,529
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And you have exactly what to support that claim?
     
  10. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    469
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    I thought everyone knew that, but here's some reading you could do. Humans didn't exist 2.6 million years ago, at least not modern homo sapiens.

     
  11. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,529
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    One paper vs the gold standard temperature reconstruction for the past 10K years in the region?...OK...easy to see how you came to be duped so easily...
     
  12. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,536
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    ....!!??
    I'm only really a passive observer of the great climate debacle and read with interest the various comments here, whilst I have no claim to expertise in meteorology, I also tend to read the odd scientific articles written by both pro and anti warmers. They offer differing views as one would expect from scientists, add to that the mix the “informed” journalist and their take on the popularist consumable re-interpretation of the science and then it gets emotive as per the above from the linked article.

    So, for what it’s worth my take, well;
    Is the planet getting warmer… yes it probably is
    Is this solely caused by humans… no it probably isn’t
    Is there something we should do about it… yes there probably is
    Will it make a difference… no it probably won’t
    Are we all going to die… bollocks

    Like anything when Governments, quasi-government bodies and lobbyists become involved in social, economic or scientific endeavours I look at motive and agenda; who gains and why? What is the benefit of proving that there is no imminent social or economic threat or outcome from a global warming scenario – if you prove a negative then the status quo surely prevails. If, on the other hand your “science proves” a significant threat of a likely occurrence or outcome then you create a dynamic – who, what, why, where and when. That opens up the delicious possibility of creating a social movement and industry which creates a demand for consequence and remedy: bringing us back to Governments, quasi-government bodies and lobbyists;
    Government = tax
    Quasi-government bodies = funding
    Lobbyists = influence
    The scientists of course being the guardians of fact suddenly find an ear and a ready market for their services in all of the above organisations - for a fee of course.
     
    palerider likes this.
  13. palerider

    palerider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    4,529
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63


    That 10X faster meme is all the rage...even though there isn't a single proxy reconstruction that can support the claim...no proxy record other than ice cores can even begin to boast such resolution and the ice cores show temperature changes happening more rapidly than anything we have seen...
     
    The Scotsman likes this.
  14. PLC1

    PLC1 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Messages:
    9,857
    Likes Received:
    469
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    The Golden State
    And, we have seen extinctions in the past. Species homo sapiens was nearly extinct at one time due to climate change. Now, we're numerous enough to accelerate climate change ourselves and bring on the Anthropocene era.
     
  15. The Scotsman

    The Scotsman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2008
    Messages:
    2,536
    Likes Received:
    291
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    South of the Haggis Munching Line
    There is of course that scenario and its being written about and peer reviewed by many established and reputable institutes and organisations but again it has to go back to why? Look at the link within the article to where this 10 times faster comes from....

    http://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html

    Whose climate models? Have these models been peer reviewed? Have they been stress tested? Are they based on current analytical algorithms etc. etc. etc. the questions go on and on. There is a view within a section of the scientific community that the study and teaching of climate/meteorology and heat transfer etc. being provided to the governmental/non-governmental bodies is like children put in a dark room and telling ghost stories - the longer they are in there the more dramatic stories become the more scared they get. Finally the message that emerges from these sessions bears little relation to the actual state of affairs.
     
Loading...

Share This Page