'Planetary emergency' due to Arctic melt, experts warn

Sep 20, 2012 by Mariano Andrade
Image of the Norvegian fjord Kongsfjord off the coast of Ny-Alesund in 2010. Experts have warned of a "planetary emergency" due to the unforeseen global consequences of Arctic ice melt, including methane gas released from permafrost regions currently under ice.

Experts warned of a "planetary emergency" due to the unforeseen global consequences of Arctic ice melt, including methane gas released from permafrost regions currently under ice.

Columbia University and the Greenpeace held separate events Wednesday to discuss US government data showing that the has shrunk to its smallest surface area since record-keeping began in 1979.

Satellite images show the melted to 1.32 million square miles (3.4 million square kilometers) as of September 16, the predicted lowest point for the year, according to data from the National Snow and Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.

"Between 1979 and 2012, we have a decline of 13 percent per decade in the sea ice, accelerating from six percent between 1979 and 2000," said oceanographer Wieslaw Maslowski with the US Naval Postgraduate School, speaking at the Greenpeace event.

"If this trend continues we will not have sea ice by the end of this decade," said Maslowski.

While these figures are worse than the early estimates they come as no surprise to scientists, said NASA climate expert James Hansen, who also spoke at the Greenpeace event.

Graphic showing the extent of Arctic sea ice, at its lowest in September since records began in 1979.

"We are in a planetary emergency," said Hansen, decrying "the gap between what is understood by scientific community and what is known by the public."

Scientists say the earth's climate has been warming because carbon dioxide and other human-produced gases hinder the planet's reflection of the sun's heat back into space, creating a .

Environmentalists warn that a string of recent around the globe, including deadly typhoons, devastating floods and severe droughts, show urgent action on is needed.

The extreme weather include the drought and that struck the United States in the summer.

One consequence of the melt is the slow but continuous rise in the ocean level that threatens coastal areas.

Another result is the likely release of large amounts of methane—a greenhouse gas—trapped in the permafrost under Greenland's ice cap, the remains of the region's organic plant and animal life that were trapped in sediment and later covered by ice sheets in the last Ice Age.

Methane is 25 times more efficient at trapping solar heat than carbon dioxide, and the released gases could in turn add to global warming, which in turn would free up more locked-up carbon.

"The implications are enormous and also mysterious," said environmentalist Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, a global non-governmental organization focused on solving the climate crisis.

For Peter Schlosser, an expert with the Earth Institute at Columbia University, the impact of the polar ice cap melt is hard to determine because "the Arctic is likely to respond rapidly and more severely than other part of the Earth.

"The effects of human induced global change are more and more visible and larger impacts are expected for the future," he said.

Image provided by Greenpeace shows its ship My Arctic Sunrise north of the Arctic Circle on September 14. Satellite images show the Arctic ice cap melted to 1.32 mln sq miles as of September 16, the predicted lowest point for the year.

Some see the Arctic melt as a business opportunity—a chance to reach the oil and gas riches under the seabed, and a path for ships to shorten the distance between ports and saving time and fuel.

According to the US Geological Survey, within the Arctic Circle there are some 90 million barrels of oil—13 percent of the planet's undiscovered oil reserves and 30 percent of its undiscovered natural gas.

The potential bounty that has encouraged energy groups like Royal Dutch Shell Co. to invest heavily in the region.

Greenpeace International head Kumi Naidoo says that oil companies have thwarted governments from taking action to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions.

"Why our governments don't take action? Because they have been captured by the same interests of the energy industry," Naidoo said.

Anne Siders, a postdoctoral researcher at Columbia University's Center for Climate Change Law, warned against the "temptation" of sending ships through the area.

The new shipping lanes are dangerous to use because there are plenty of ice floes and little infrastructure for help in case of an accident—which in turn increases the insurance costs.

Another consequence of global warming is that, as the oceans warm, more cold-water fish move north, "which means more fish will be taken out of their ecosystem," said Siders.

Caroline Cannon, a leader of the Inupiat community of Alaska, reminded the participants that her indigenous community, including her nine children and 25 grandchildren, depend on Arctic fishing and hunting for survival.

"My people rely on that ocean and we're seeing dramatic changes," said Cannon. "It's scary to think about our food supply."

Explore further: Remnants of Tropical Depression Peipah still raining on Philippines

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Agriculture's growing effects on rain

19 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Increased agricultural activity is a rain taker, not a rain maker, according to researchers at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and their collaborators at the University of California Los ...

Asian air pollution affect Pacific Ocean storms

Apr 14, 2014

In the first study of its kind, scientists have compared air pollution rates from 1850 to 2000 and found that anthropogenic (man-made) particles from Asia impact the Pacific storm track that can influence ...

User comments : 56

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

skicoach
2.4 / 5 (33) Sep 20, 2012
This is politics not science. The seasonal sea ice mass has increased in the Southern hemisphere - why no mention here? Only a generation ago the "Planetary Emergency" was that the planet was cooling and the outcry was that governments were not doing enough to stop it. There were proposals to spread soot on the ice to make it melt more rapidly. Scare people enough and you can do anything. Just look at the moron who commented before this one - conformism mindlessness go together. Science might get funded this way but it doesn't work this way - stay skeptical - stay scientific.
VendicarD
3.2 / 5 (29) Sep 20, 2012
Probably because southern sea ice does not significantly influence Northern Hemisphere climate.

Secondly because a larger sea ice area in the SH is indicative of a flow of continental ice onto the sea resulting from Antarctic melt.

But you are correct on one thing. Your response is pure politics.

"This is politics not science. The seasonal sea ice mass has increased in the Southern hemisphere - why no mention here." - SkiTard
VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (26) Sep 20, 2012
Sorry Tard boy. But that denialist lie has been debunked for far longer than Romney has been a tax dodger.

http://www.youtub...embedded

"Only a generation ago the "Planetary Emergency" was that the planet was cooling and the outcry was that governments were not doing enough to stop it." - SkiTard
VendicarD
3.2 / 5 (24) Sep 20, 2012

"Science might get funded this way but it doesn't work this way - stay skeptical - stay scientific." - SkiTard

If you knew anything about science you might have had a chance to be right. But since you don't, you didn't.

http://www.youtub...=related

Educate yourself Tard Boy.

rubberman
3.6 / 5 (26) Sep 20, 2012
I would think a ski coach would be more concerned.

"This is politics not science."

"Your response is pure politics." - This is accurate

Consider this, how hard is it to freak out scientists to the point of them using the words "planetary emergency"?

Imagine one of the foremost astronomers declaring a cosmic emergency because of something he found, or one of the CERN team sprinting out the exit yelling "EVERYBODY RUN"!

Nah...they're probably over reacting...cause scientists do that.
djr
3.7 / 5 (23) Sep 20, 2012
"The seasonal sea ice mass has increased in the Southern hemisphere - why no mention here?"

Because the Antarctic sea ice extent has been pretty stable over the past 30 years - whereas the Arctic has been on a dramatic downhill slide. Look at this web site - and on the small graphic on the right hand side - toggle between Arctic monthly, an Antarctic monthly. It becomes clear that they do not balance each other out. Do a quick google search for Antarctic climate - you will find a wealth of information showing you how this comparison is invalid.

http://nsidc.org/...e_index/
Shootist
2.5 / 5 (27) Sep 20, 2012
Record sea ice growth in the Antarctic.

http://www.forbes...-record/
djr
3.6 / 5 (17) Sep 20, 2012
"Record sea ice growth in the Antarctic." Did you look at my post above? The two events are not even close to comparable.
VendicarD
3.4 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2012
Is it? If it is anything like last years North American winter, it will never arrive.

"Winter is coming." - RyggTard
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (21) Sep 20, 2012
Yes, the record growth of sea ice in Antarctica this winter is in part caused by the continental ice flowing toward the sea.

As the melt rate increases the flow rate does as well. A nice chart showing the decline in global sea ice area can be found here.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

Currently global sea ice area is around 1.8 million kilometers below historical norms.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (24) Sep 20, 2012
The article in Forbes by the way is written by the Heritage Foundation - one of the most corrupt corporate propaganda groups in America.

Heritage is disparately trying to change the subject from the ongoing collapse of the northern ice cap to anything else.

Only the most foolish of fools are listening.
NotParker
2.3 / 5 (25) Sep 20, 2012
"The seasonal sea ice mass has increased in the Southern hemisphere - why no mention here?"

Because the Antarctic sea ice extent has been pretty stable over the past 30 years


Today Antarctic Sea Ice area is over 16 million sq km.

Just 10 years ago on this day Antarctic Sea Ice was 14.5 million sq km.

Of course the Arctic low this years was caused by the unusual cyclone. Until the cyclone hit ice area was over 200,000 sq km higher than in 2007.

Why does an unusual but not rare cyclone cause the AGW cult to run around screaming "planetary emergency"?

The Arctic Sea Ice maximum this spring was well above normal.
Claudius
2 / 5 (23) Sep 20, 2012
"We are in a planetary emergency," said Hansen, decrying "the gap between what is understood by scientific community and what is known by the public."

Really?

"Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week, with the most amount of ice ever recorded on day 256 of the calendar year..."

"Antarctic sea ice has been growing since satellites first began measuring the ice 33 years ago and the sea ice has been above the 33-year average throughout 2012."

"Sea ice around one pole is shrinking while sea ice around another pole is growing. This sure sounds like a global warming crisis to me."

"Indeed, none of the mainstream media are covering this important story."

- Antarctic Sea Ice Sets Another Record http://www.forbes...-record/
flashgordon
2.3 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2012
methane released due to global warming; don't tell terrorists this one!
djr
3.9 / 5 (19) Sep 20, 2012
"Antarctic sea ice set another record this past week"

Claudius - take the time to read some of the posts responding to this nonsense. There is no comparison between the 30 year downward trend of the Arctic - and the 30 year almost flat data coming out of the Antarctic. Let me show you yet again. Go to this web site - http://nsidc.org/...e_index/ in the graphic on the right hand side of the page - toggle between Arctic monthly, and Antarctic monthly - you will see how inappropriate it is to compare these two situations.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2012
"Record sea ice growth in the Antarctic." Did you look at my post above? The two events are not even close to comparable.


No, of course they didn't look at your post. They are set in their views and won't change them based on facts. You have to show them how it will cost them before they will listen. They are focused on their conspiracy theories and the concept that it will cost them.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 20, 2012
Rgg, NP, Claudius, Ubatubby: What would it take for you to be convinced that AGW is happening and is not some conspiracy by most of the scientists on the Earth? I am asking this out of real interest. I am curious as to what evidence would make you change your belief. I, actually, find it difficult to believe that nothing would change a reasonable person's view. However, I don't know what it would take for you. Would you take a few minutes to think about it and let me know? Thank you in advance.
Claudius
2.3 / 5 (15) Sep 20, 2012
The best way to go about convincing me of AGW, would be to explain why global CO2 levels are lagging behind temperature, as shown in this recent article http://www.scienc...12001658

It seems to me that if the warming was due to human CO2 production, or even just CO2 increases in general, temperature increases would lag CO2 levels, not vice versa. Instead, the data indicates that CO2 levels are increasing as a result of increasing temperature.

Then you could explain why change in global temperature so closely matches solar activity.

BTW: thanks for the courteous nature of your request.
NotParker
2.2 / 5 (13) Sep 20, 2012
Rgg, NP, Claudius, Ubatubby: What would it take for you to be convinced that AGW is happening and is not some conspiracy by most of the scientists on the Earth?


The AGW "scientists" predicted a .2C / decade warming trend.

Temperature has essentially a zero trend for the last 15 years.

1) Come up with a new theory (not hundreds of them) that accounts for the flat line.

2) Prove bright sunshine did not change in the 90s (it actually did).

3) Prove cloud cover has not changed (it actually did).

etc
NotParker
2 / 5 (12) Sep 20, 2012
There is no comparison between the 30 year downward trend of the Arctic


Why exagerate?

1) Arctic Sea Ice was at record levels until 1997.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

2) The AMO went positive in 1997.

http://en.wikiped...sent.svg

The AMO warms sea surface.
HTK
2 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2012
It's obviously too late.

I think there will be alot of volcanoes and earthquakes as the earth would be much hotter than before there were ice sheets/glaciers etc.

One giant volcano explosion should cool the earth down I guess...
djr
3.3 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2012
"There is no comparison between the 30 year downward trend of the Arctic"

"Why exagerate?"

I would like to ask people like Parker a serious question too. Why do you bother commenting - when you don't know what you are talking about? There is no exaggeration between the question I posed above - and the facts - http://nsidc.org/...ires.png

You just insult yourself by looking so ignorant. But why do I care? Well we are dragging our feet in terms of our understanding of the science of global warming. The stakes are very high - and I want us to listen to the science - and make intelligent decisions on the issue (not over reactions - but intelligent decisions about our shared earth). Knuckle dragging by idiots seems to be to be a deliberate attempt by a segment of our world to hinder our progress. I guess - unlike Thermo - I am angry at the ignorance....

djr
3.3 / 5 (12) Sep 20, 2012
"2) The AMO went positive in 1997." But the AMO went negative (or cool) in January 2009 - so I wonder how Parker explains the continued loss of Arctic ice. http://icecap.us/...clel.pdf

It is hard to understand how someone can talk so much - but is unable to read.....
Skepticus
3.2 / 5 (10) Sep 20, 2012
Just picked up this transmission from Sol 3:
"...this is a planetary emergency.. Do not approach Earth.. Save your energy. Save yourselves.."
I'd say all sightseers are welcome. There is rally good spectacle going full blast there. The inhabitants are arguing to the death.

NotParker
2.5 / 5 (15) Sep 20, 2012
"2) The AMO went positive in 1997." But the AMO went negative (or cool) in January 2009 - so I wonder how Parker explains the continued loss of Arctic ice. http://icecap.us/...clel.pdf

It is hard to understand how someone can talk so much - but is unable to read.....


You should try it.

The NOAA agrees that it went negative for a few months ... but in June of 2009 it went positive again. And the only negative months since then are Nov/Dec/Jan 2011/2012, and then back to positive.

http://www.esrl.n....us.data

dir, try and do a tiny bit of research before you beclown yourself.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 20, 2012
"There is no comparison between the 30 year downward trend of the Arctic"

"Why exagerate?"

I would like to ask people like Parker a serious question too. Why do you bother commenting - when you don't know what you are talking about? There is no exaggeration between the question I posed above - and the facts - http://nsidc.org/...ires.png


Looks hand drawn by someone not looking at the data.

This is the data:

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

Late 1996 was the 2nd highest anomaly in satellite history.

http://arctic.atm...ries.jpg
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (6) Sep 20, 2012
The best way to go about convincing me of AGW, would be to explain why global CO2 levels are lagging behind temperature, as shown in this recent article http://www.scienc...12001658

It seems to me that if the warming was due to human CO2 production, or even just CO2 increases in general, temperature increases would lag CO2 levels, not vice versa. Instead, the data indicates that CO2 levels are increasing as a result of increasing temperature.

Then you could explain why change in global temperature so closely matches solar activity.

BTW: thanks for the courteous nature of your request.


Claudius,

The 5 rank was in error. Just so you know.

While I applaud your courteous --and even maybe sincere response--
I dismiss your argument for cause, as it is specious(which assesment I offer charitably), and has been debunked and refuted right here in the comments forum of physorg over and over and over again.

hemitite
2.3 / 5 (12) Sep 20, 2012
Arctic ice comes and goes on a regular basis without any discernible help from Mankind. There is a, no doubt out of print, book called "Climates of Hunger" that does a nice job of giving the history of the egress and regress of N. Atlantic ocean ice, correlating it to the southern extent of the high latitude westerlies, often seen on weather maps as the "jet stream."

The real problem with the current fad of climate change hysteria, is not whether the average global temp is rising, which it well may be, but WHY this change is taking place. And the CO2 fanatics have yet to prove that our output of that gas is what is driving this alleged change.

Instead we are treated to massive doses of bad science and a climate of intolerance driven by fear of and devotion to a quasi religion. This "Green" faith calls on its adherents to love and worship all of Nature save for the human part, which is subjected to almost unrelenting scorn and self-hatred.

I hope science can survive this folly.
cdt
4.8 / 5 (8) Sep 20, 2012
This is the data: http://arctic.atm...ctic.png Late 1996 was the 2nd highest anomaly in satellite history.


NP, are you offering that data as evidence of the downward trend? Or are you cherry picking your single point of data in 1996 in a futile attempt to refute it? Even without doing any statistical analysis of the data you linked to it is patently obvious that the ice extent has been going down. Where the downward trend begins isn't obvious from inspection alone, granted, but given that very few dates before 1989 show ice extents below normal and no dates after 2005 show ice extents above normal I'd say the trend in the graph is crystal clear.
Steambop
4.3 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2012
I having been reading physorg for a while now, in particular the posts on climate change, and have come to the conclusion, like many others, that some people are just not willing to accept the notion of climate change, which has the largest scientific consensus and evidence to support it.

Old excuses are being dragged out time and time again by a number of people who die-hard denialists, where people like Vendi, Thermodynamics etc.. tirelessly explain the flaws in their claims time and time again.

So here is what I propose, A naming/numbering scheme for these common false claims. e.g. the Antartic Ice mass is increasing = 1
Solar activity explains warming in recent times = 2, and so on.
Make it a lot easier than reeling out the same explanations time and time again.
VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2012
The Antarctic ice area anomely is 1 million square kilometers as of today.

The increase in extent is in part the result of an increase in the rate of flow of ice off of the Antarctic continent due to global warming.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

Meanwhile the ice loss in the Arctic puts it 2.5 million square kilometers to the negative.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

The net global loss (which has little meaning) is 1.5 million square kilometers.

"Today Antarctic Sea Ice area is over 16 million sq km." - ParkerTard

Poor mentally diseased ParkerTard. He is so desperate he will say anything.
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2012
@Claudius,
CO2 levels are lagging behind temperature, as shown in this recent article
This article has been debunked as atrociously bad science already, see here and here:

https://troyca.wo...erature/

http://www.realcl...nfusion/

Bottom line: your assertion (and that paper's conclusion) is clearly and palpably false.

Besides, don't you know even the basics concerning greenhouse gases, and the atmospheric greenhouse effect?

explain why change in global temperature so closely matches solar activity
Does it, now?

http://en.wikiped...-co2.svg

http://en.wikiped...data.png

If anything, in the last couple of decades global average temperature and solar irradiance have actually been ANTI-correlated.
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2012
The 1996 anomaly occurred in September when the ice extent was at it's minimum for the year.

At that time the ice extent anomaly was 1.2 million kilometers to the positive, currently it is 2.5 to the negative, a change of 3.7 toward the negative in 20 years.

Using the standard denialist analytic method of drawing a line between those two points we get a trend of minus 1.85 million square kilometers per decade.

Since only 2.2 million square kilometers of ice remain, even by your own standards of "analysis" it will last not much longer than a decade.

"Late 1996 was the 2nd highest anomaly in satellite history." - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. He is so desperate to save his denialist faith.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2012
Oh, that is simple.... The aren't.

"The best way to go about convincing me of AGW, would be to explain why global CO2 levels are lagging behind temperature, as shown in this recent article" - Claudius

The paper you refer to has already been heavily debunked.

Their method of analysis produces false (lag) results even when applied to data with alternate correlations.

It is interesting to note that the authors of the now debunked paper are a geology professor, a telephone company statistician and an astrophysicist, all associated with the Most Corrupt Propaganda Organization in America - Heartland

"Furthermore, they are also involved with an organisation called "klimarealistene" (with collaborations with the Heartland Institute), which claims that the IPCC has 'cheated' in terms of the temperature data (which ironically, they themselves rely on in Humlum et al., 2012)" -
http://www.realcl...-13053-0
djr
4.5 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2012
"Looks hand drawn by someone not looking at the data." If Parker looked at the url - and if Parker could read - Parker would have seen the graph was from the NSIDC - seemed like a pretty reputable source to me - oh right - it does not match Parker's anti science narrative - so make fun of the way the graph is drawn - Jeeshhhhh!!!
VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2012
That is also simple.

It doesn't.

"Then you could explain why change in global temperature so closely matches solar activity." - Claudius

http://www.youtub...embedded
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2012
ParkerTard thinks that the graph was drawn by hand because it looks like the kind of graphs he draws on the walls in his padded room.

Matron provides him with washable markers so that he can't hurt himself when the voices in his head tell him that he should do so.

ziphead
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 21, 2012
"Planetary emergency due to Arctic melt, experts warn"

It may be too late. We will know soon, I suppose.
VendicarD
4 / 5 (12) Sep 21, 2012
http://www.woodfo...11/trend

Up 0.1'C since 1998

Why do you persist in telling the same lie over and over and over again ParkerTard?

"Temperature has essentially a zero trend for the last 15 years." - ParkerTard

You know that we will just expose you again, and again, and again, for being the perpetual liar that you have proven yourself to be.

Chromodynamix
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 21, 2012
Eventually the Methane will exceed 5% and there will be fireballs in the sky triggered by lightning!

Don't you just love hyperbole :^p
runrig
3.7 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2012
The real problem with the current fad of climate change hysteria, is not whether the average global temp is rising, which it well may be, but WHY this change is taking place. And the CO2 fanatics have yet to prove that our output of that gas is what is driving this alleged change.


Have a look at this..... http://www.lifesl...und.html

Author Richard Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley and former skeptic - heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.

""The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried - Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect. These facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end skepticism, but they raise the bar: To be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does."
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 21, 2012
From.... http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

"The six lowest seasonal minimum ice extents in the satellite record have all occurred in the last six years (2007 to 2012). In contrast to 2007, when climatic conditions (winds, clouds, air temperatures) favored summer ice loss, this year's conditions were not as extreme. Summer temperatures across the Arctic were warmer than average, but cooler than in 2007. The most notable event was a very strong storm centered over the central Arctic Ocean in early August. It is likely that the primary reason for the large loss of ice this summer is that the ice cover has continued to thin and become more dominated by seasonal ice. This thinner ice was more prone to be broken up and melted by weather events, such as the strong low pressure system just mentioned. The storm sped up the loss of the thin ice that appears to have been already on the verge of melting completely."
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (11) Sep 21, 2012
As I was saying, the AMO went positive in 1997.

Even the hand drawn NSIDC map has late 1996 as the 2nd highest arctic ice ever.

The AMO will turn negative soon for decades (not just the fews months dir claimed was the big change.)

Arctic Ice will recover. Next year should be quite demoralizing for the cult (if no cyclone hits). The only factor going their way will explode in their faces.

Antarctic Sea Ice is still a record for this day.
cdt
3.8 / 5 (10) Sep 21, 2012
NotParker, give it up. Please. When I first saw discussions between you and the scientific crowd on this site I was willing to entertain the possibility that you had some foundations for your skeptical claims. By now it is clear that you cling tightly to cherry picked data, and that the conclusions you draw from them are completely divorced from reality. Furthermore, your lack of understanding of basic science as well as your unwillingness to engage in fruitful scientific discussion are painfully transparent. Do yourself and the rest of us the favor of taking your tripe elsewhere. Not that it will be appreciated anywhere else, but it clearly is not appreciated here. Nor should it be.
james_r_tyrer
2 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2012
You might want to read this again, carefully:

"Another result is the likely release of large amounts of methane—a greenhouse gas—trapped in the permafrost under Greenland's ice cap, the remains of the region's organic plant and animal life that were trapped in sediment and later covered by ice sheets in the last Ice Age."

Doesn't that mean that we are at the end of the last ice age, that that ice is going to melt, and that it has nothing to do with "Climate Change"?
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2012
@Claudius,
CO2 levels are lagging behind temperature, as shown in this recent article
This article has been debunked as atrociously bad science already, see here and here:

https://troyca.wo...erature/

I read your debunk article. It uses a model to refute the observed data. One comment on the article was "Has it ever occured to you that your calculations is simply wrong? Does observations mean anything to you?" A sentiment I heartily agree with. In science, observations must always trump models.

As to solar effects on climate, the same article you referenced has this to say about that: "...empirical results of detectable tropospheric changes have strengthened the evidence for solar forcing of climate change."

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 22, 2012
Probably because southern sea ice does not significantly influence Northern Hemisphere climate.
So we're not talking about "global warming" anymore?

Secondly because a larger sea ice area in the SH is indicative of a flow of continental ice onto the sea resulting from Antarctic melt.
False. You still don't understand the difference between sea ice and shelf ice. And the Antarctic land ice isn't melting.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2012
Ubatubby: What would it take for you to be convinced that AGW is happening ...?
Proof human induced CO2 is the primary driver, and reliable temperature data. Or if you wish, you may simplify it to just GW. Then, the reliable temperature data will suffice.

I, actually, find it difficult to believe that nothing would change a reasonable person's view.
Indeed.

As far as convincing me AGW is happening: The argument needs to be global, sound, and relevant.

However, I don't know what it would take for you. Would you take a few minutes to think about it and let me know? Thank you in advance.
Done.

And I, in turn, would request you to answer the following:

What would it take for you to be convinced that GW has stalled out for at least 11 years?

And thank you for your (generally) elegantly written request and in advance for your answer.
runrig
4 / 5 (8) Sep 22, 2012
""This article has been debunked as atrociously bad science, see..https://troyca.wo...rature/"
I read your debunk article. It uses a model to refute the observed data. One comment on the article was "Has it ever occured to you that your calculations is simply wrong? Does observations mean anything to you?" A sentiment I heartily agree with. In science, observations must always trump models."
And the author's reply....
"Observations are indeed, important, as you can see in many of my other posts. However, it is standard practice to validate methods against "pseudo-data" where the underlying properties are known. I've shown that the method used in this paper yields misleading results and fails "validation" for answering the particular questions that the authors are trying to answer. Why then would we have any confidence that such a method would work on "real world" observations?.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 22, 2012
Have a look at this..... http://www.lifesl...und.html

Author Richard Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley and former skeptic - heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.

""The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've tried - Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect. These facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end skepticism, but they raise the bar: To be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does."
This has already been discussed on this site, and even his own colleague, climatologist Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, thinks he's full of it.

http://phys.org/n...tic.html

Johnpaily
1.5 / 5 (4) Sep 22, 2012
sustain the heat of the system and thus sustain life. Earth is designed into parallel worlds, when west awakes to sunlight and heat; the east sleeps to darkness to create new order and vice-versa. The plants help in this process by absorbing sunlight and heat and converting it into biological mass. Our ignorance to know the simple realties of nature and her functioning and our reckless industrial and technological activity, releasing heat exponentially and our intrusion into night cycle when she creates order has disrupted earth's functioning.
Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 23, 2012
The best way to go about convincing me of AGW, would be to explain why global CO2 levels are lagging behind temperature, as shown in this recent article http://www.scienc...12001658


Positive Albedo Feedback.

It works like this:

CO2 traps heat.
Heat melts Ice, lowering Albedo.
Lower Albedo equals more sunlight captured, equals more heat.
By next season humans have added a net gain of 2 more PPM CO2.
Heat melts Ice...., etc.

Your claim of CO2 "Following" the warming is wrong and ridiculous.
Lurker2358
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2012
Why does an unusual but not rare cyclone cause the AGW cult to run around screaming "planetary emergency"?


This year's volume minimum was 3400cu km, giving a net annual volume loss of 600cu km.

This is exactly the same as the 5 year running average annual net volume loss of 600cu km.

Therefore the "Cyclone" had no significant impacts, and this year is almost exactly where the previous exponential trend calculated from last year's data had predicted it to be.

When 2008 rotates out of the 5 year average, it will be a pretty big deal.

Next year we should expect an annual loss of about 700cu km in volume in the Arctic.

By the way, the 1996 up anomaly in volume and area is a volcanic rebound peak from Montserrat, which happened in 1995. Similarly, 1992 is a volcanic rebound peak from Pinatubo.

Oh yeah, an antarctic record for ONE day doesn't make much difference.

Global area had record minimums on several days. See next post.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Sep 23, 2012
"Caroline Cannon, a leader of the Inupiat community of Alaska, reminded the participants that her indigenous community, including her nine children and 25 grandchildren, depend on Arctic fishing and hunting for survival."

Adapt or die. That's what her ancestors did.
Lurker2358
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 23, 2012
"Caroline Cannon, a leader of the Inupiat community of Alaska, reminded the participants that her indigenous community, including her nine children and 25 grandchildren, depend on Arctic fishing and hunting for survival."

Adapt or die. That's what her ancestors did.


Rygg:

You're more than a little ignorant.

Global fisheries are heavily damaged, as apex predatory fish and predatory whales have declined 90% in the recent past.

This affects not only sharks, but many fishes we use for food, including Tuna. Tuna have a long life cycle before reaching reproductive maturity, nearly as long as the entire life span of a cow, for example.

For a tuna and a cow born the same year, the cow can calf 4 or 5 times before the tuna even reaches reproductive age.

These fish do not recover quickly, so you'd need probably 2 or 3 full life cycles of reduced or banned fishing in order for them to recover, and that's about 14 to 18 years at a minimum, and possibly 25 years.
draa
4 / 5 (4) Sep 24, 2012
You have to love people quoting Forbes as science. Just goes to show the amount of ignorance that the deniers have. It's astronomical to say the least.

More news stories

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Low Vitamin D may not be a culprit in menopause symptoms

A new study from the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) shows no significant connection between vitamin D levels and menopause symptoms. The study was published online today in Menopause, the journal of The North American Menopa ...

Astronomers: 'Tilt-a-worlds' could harbor life

A fluctuating tilt in a planet's orbit does not preclude the possibility of life, according to new research by astronomers at the University of Washington, Utah's Weber State University and NASA. In fact, ...