CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23693
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 3:50 pm
 


Again KK, the article concerned global ice. The anomaly for global ice remains positive. Today it is +.028.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... global.png

The NASA post you offered concerned only the Arctic. Also it's outdated. I'm not sure it hasn't been proven incorrect by what followed. They claim the summer maximum appeared to end Feb 25, but when I look at the ice graph it appears the line notched back up and the actual Summer maximum end looks more like early April.

Image

In any case, in previous years ice watchers have always waited until the summer minimum to draw conclusions. Why the poster at NASA wanted to jump the gun, I can only guess.

Currently things don't look too bad.

2015 is looking to continue the healthy rebound from the record ice minimum of 2012. In fact the rebound in 2013 was also a record and at present we're above that.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63685
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:06 pm
 


Kootenays_kid wrote:
...


I notice you're resurrecting global warming topics and you're pretty set on posting along a certain point of view.

I suppose I'm curious if you work for a government agency given that Canada's government has a track record of such things.



Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:07 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
Again KK, the article concerned global ice. The anomaly for global ice remains positive. Today it is +.028.


Correction: Global sea ice.

I don't know if there is any "global ice" extent. There is snow cover and measurement of glacier extent for most glaciers.

Antarctic sea ice is at record levels, although ice sheets are melting. Apparently geothermal heat is a culprit for that, although we don't really know if that's something new or if it has always been there.

Same with the locked jet stream--our knowledge or ENSO and PDO and all that stuff is just in its infancy. Is it due to that, or glaobal warming. Who knows? Both?


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20991
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:08 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Kootenays_kid wrote:
...


I notice you're resurrecting global warming topics and you're pretty set on posting along a certain point of view.

I suppose I'm curious if you work for a government agency given that Canada's government has a track record of such things.



I don't think so. This government isn't exactly a proponent of global warming theory.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23693
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:16 pm
 


Zipperfish wrote:
N_Fiddledog wrote:
Again KK, the article concerned global ice. The anomaly for global ice remains positive. Today it is +.028.


Correction: Global sea ice.


Well, excyooooose me...Mister king of the typo. :wink:

But yeah, now that I think about it, that is kind of significant. So OK...got me. No apology though. You and yours have done worse. :P


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 27
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:22 pm
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Kootenays_kid wrote:
...


I notice you're resurrecting global warming topics and you're pretty set on posting along a certain point of view.

I suppose I'm curious if you work for a government agency given that Canada's government has a track record of such things.


I'm posting the science on what is a scientific based issue - I'm not interested in getting into an ad hominem exchange on what is a purely technical issue.

The current Canadian government has a terrible record when it comes to allowing the free exchange and communication of science based information on this issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/muzzl ... -1.2128859

Quote:
Hundreds of federal scientists said in a survey that they had been asked to exclude or alter technical information in government documents for non-scientific reasons, and thousands said they had been prevented from responding to the media or the public.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 27
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 4:38 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
Again KK, the article concerned global ice. The anomaly for global ice remains positive. Today it is +.028.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere ... global.png

The NASA post you offered concerned only the Arctic. Also it's outdated. I'm not sure it hasn't been proven incorrect by what followed. They claim the summer maximum appeared to end Feb 25, but when I look at the ice graph it appears the line notched back up and the actual Summer maximum end looks more like early April.

Image

In any case, in previous years ice watchers have always waited until the summer minimum to draw conclusions. Why the poster at NASA wanted to jump the gun, I can only guess.

Currently things don't look too bad.

2015 is looking to continue the healthy rebound from the record ice minimum of 2012. In fact the rebound in 2013 was also a record and at present we're above that.


The NASA piece concerns the 2015 sea ice surface maximum extent which is the lowest recorded by satellite measurement. And as sea ice is three not two dimensional this doesn't include the overall loss in Arctic sea ice volume which is down by as much as 70% over the last three decades. Which means that with the right weather conditions in the Arctic this summer we could see another record sea ice minimum.

I also included the Skeptical science pages on mass loss of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets which contain links to peer-reviewed articles throughout.

If you need visual evidence of cryosphere loss globally then go to Extreme Ice Survey.

All the evidence indicates there is massive ice loss at both poles as well as all latitudes of alpine glaciers.

When you consider the amount of energy that has already been added to the global climate, an amount equal to the amount of energy released by the detonation of over 2 billion Hiroshima sized atomic weapons since the late 1990s - that works out to 4 atom bombs a second- most of it going into the oceans, it's highly unlikely there will be a "recovery" of ice caps or glaciers in our lifetimes.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/4-Hiros ... econd.html

Quote:
The slope of the global heat accumulation graph tells us how rapidly the Earth's climate is building up heat. Over the past decade, the rate is 8 x 1021 Joules per year, or 2.5 x 1014 Joules per second. The yield of the Hiroshima atomic bomb was 6.3 x 1013 Joules, hence the rate of global heat accumulation is equivalent to about 4 Hiroshima bomb detonations per second. That's nearly 2 billion atomic bomb detonations worth of heat accumulating in the Earth's climate system since 1998, when we're told global warming supposedly 'paused'. That has to be the worst pause ever.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23693
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:27 pm
 


Kootenays_kid wrote:
The NASA piece concerns the 2015 sea ice surface maximum extent which is the lowest recorded by satellite measurement.


Yes it concerns extent. The graph above concerns "extent" as well. You do know how to read a graph, I assume. Look at it. Forget what UnSkeptical Science and Unscientific American is telling you to believe for a sec. What does the graph say? When does the maximum extent appear to have been reached?

OK now here's what your post from NASA actually said:

Quote:
The sea ice cap of the Arctic appeared to reach its annual maximum winter extent on Feb. 25,


Did you catch that? Appeared

Now look up at that Arctic sea ice extent graph again. What happened after that guy guessed at what might have turned out to be true?

I'd say one thing, you'd say another, but it doesn't even matter, because it's too close to call, and in any case, as everybody who knows this subject knows, the real conclusions are made after the summer minimum. Currently there doesn't appear to be a problem there.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 27
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:23 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
Kootenays_kid wrote:
The NASA piece concerns the 2015 sea ice surface maximum extent which is the lowest recorded by satellite measurement.


Yes it concerns extent. The graph above concerns "extent" as well. You do know how to read a graph, I assume. Look at it. Forget what UnSkeptical Science and Unscientific American is telling you to believe for a sec. What does the graph say? When does the maximum extent appear to have been reached?

OK now here's what your post from NASA actually said:

Quote:
The sea ice cap of the Arctic appeared to reach its annual maximum winter extent on Feb. 25,


Did you catch that? Appeared

Now look up at that Arctic sea ice extent graph again. What happened after that guy guessed at what might have turned out to be true?

I'd say one thing, you'd say another, but it doesn't even matter, because it's too close to call, and in any case, as everybody who knows this subject knows, the real conclusions are made after the summer minimum. Currently there doesn't appear to be a problem there.


I guess that makes sense if you throw out all the other information and completely ignore the context this is taking place in. The entire global climate is warming as is indicated by the amount of heat that has been added to it since the late 1990s alone and will be as long as we keep increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

It's only by ignoring basic science and focusing on very limited details - like the seasonal fluxuations in sea ice - that the appearance of there being any debate on this issue is maintained.

There is no real scientific question of a decadal long warming trend globally, this is going to include ice cover on both poles.

The question is no longer if this is going to take place, the question is how quickly it's going to happen which depends on a number of complex factors.

The breakdown of all the cryosphere has begun, the question is how far are we going to allow it to be driven by pushing even further into carbon dioxide concentration zone where it becomes inevitable.

You simply don't formulate policy on what is a highly scientific dependent issue by almost completely ignoring the best explanation in scientific terms.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 27
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:43 pm
 


As for not relying on the information being provided by Scientific American and Skeptical Science which both draw their information from peer-reviewed articles, they're far more credible than material being posted as part of what is almost certainly a global program to distort and conceal the valid science.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... al-effort/

Quote:
The study, by Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, is the first academic effort to probe the organizational underpinnings and funding behind the climate denial movement.

It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.

In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.


http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... lliving.g2

Quote:
For years, a network of fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies has been claiming that science of global warming is inconclusive. They set back action on climate change by a decade. But who funded them? Exxon's involvement is well known, but not the strange role of Big Tobacco. In the first of three extracts from his new book, George Monbiot tells a bizarre and shocking new story.


The only reason this is still being debated anywhere besides on the extreme fringes is the huge amount of money that is constantly being pumped into creating the illusion there is any real scientific doubt about global warming.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 27
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 6:53 pm
 


The science on the power of carbon dioxide to moderate a global climate is very strong and sobering when you look at our nearest neighbour and planetary sister Venus. It's only 30% closer to the Sun but has a surface temperature hundreds of degrees warmer than Earth almost certainly due to its almost entirely CO2 atmosphere.

http://www.universetoday.com/22577/venu ... se-effect/

Quote:
You might be surprised to know that Venus is the hottest planet in the Solar System. With a global temperature of 735 Kelvin (462 degrees C), the surface of Venus is hot enough to melt lead. And if you could stand on the surface of Venus, you would experience atmospheric pressure 92 times greater than what you’re used to on Earth. Why is Venus so hot? The Venus greenhouse effect shows you what happens when this the process of trapping sunlight goes out of control into a runaway process.



As you probably know, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Various wavelengths can pass through this invisible gas, but it’s very effective at trapping heat. Light from the Sun strikes the ground of Venus, and warms it up. The ground tries to radiate heat back into space but the carbon dioxide traps much of it around the planet keeping it so warm. This is the same thing that happens when you keep your car windows closed on a hot day.

Scientists think that Venus used to be more similar to Earth, with lower temperatures and even liquid water on the surface of the planet. At some point, billions of years ago, the planet started to heat up. At some point, all the water on the surface evaporated into the atmosphere. Water vapor is an even more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and this caused temperatures to rise even more. Then the surface of Venus got so hot that the carbon trapped in rocks sublimated into the atmosphere and mixed with oxygen to form even more carbon dioxide. And so today we have a carbon dioxide atmosphere on Venus which is 92 times more dense than Earth’s atmosphere at the surface.


We don't need to trigger a Venus Syndrome here to kill most life, we're already on the way to a low-end runaway greenhouse effect that will do that.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming

Quote:
The world is currently on course to exploit all its remaining fossil fuel resources, a prospect that would produce a "different, practically uninhabitable planet" by triggering a "low-end runaway greenhouse effect." This is the conclusion of a new scientific paper by Prof James Hansen, the former head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the world's best known climate scientist.

The paper due to be published later this month by Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A (Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A) focuses less on modelling than on empirical data about correlations between temperature, sea level and CO2 going back up to 66 million years.

Given that efforts to exploit available fossil fuels continue to accelerate, the paper's principal finding - that "conceivable levels of human-made climate forcing could yield the low-end runaway greenhouse effect" based on inducing "out-of-control amplifying feedbacks such as ice sheet disintegration and melting of methane hydrates" - is deeply worrying.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23693
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:46 pm
 


Kootenays_kid wrote:
I guess that makes sense if you throw out all the other information and completely ignore the context this is taking place in.


Good then...you got that.

Nothing that spectacular has happened this year as far as ice is concerned. Globally it's slightly above average. In the arctic it's still low, but bouncing back from the record low of 2012.

I'll show you why the NASA poster got confused on his early end to a summer maximum wish.

Have you ever seen this?

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/tes ... 26&sy=2015

It's a little gizmo from cryosphere today. You can compare arctic ice extent from one year against extent from any other year you choose in the satellite record.

Play around with it and watch for this - There are areas that will melt before the summer minimum, every year, regardless of anything else. There are areas that won't melt at all.

Now the mistake the NASA poster made was he came to a conclusion based on an area that melts every year no matter what. It melted quicker than usual, but that proved nothing. As you saw the ice appeared to bounce back in 2015 after the area that melts every year was gone. What actually happened was the area that always goes went fast, but the areas that don't melt every year didn't. So the graph notched upward and the hoped for "record" of early end to maximum did not happen.

This why ice watchers wait for the summer minimum to post their conclusions. You can't really tell what's happening in full context until after the cycle is complete. Before that the line on a graph will move up or down, often surprisingly.


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 27
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:00 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
Kootenays_kid wrote:
I guess that makes sense if you throw out all the other information and completely ignore the context this is taking place in.


Good then...you got that.

Nothing that spectacular has happened this year as far as ice is concerned. Globally it's slightly above average. In the arctic it's still low, but bouncing back from the record low of 2012.

I'll show you why the NASA poster got confused on his early end to a summer maximum wish.

Have you ever seen this?

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/tes ... 26&sy=2015

It's a little gizmo from cryosphere today. You can compare arctic ice extent from one year against extent from any other year you choose in the satellite record.

Play around with it and watch for this - There are areas that will melt before the summer minimum, every year, regardless of anything else. There are areas that won't melt at all.

Now the mistake the NASA poster made was he came to a conclusion based on an area that melts every year no matter what. It melted quicker than usual, but that proved nothing. As you saw the ice appeared to bounce back in 2015 after the area that melts every year was gone. What actually happened was the area that always goes went fast, but the areas that don't melt every year didn't. So the graph notched upward and the hoped for "record" of early end to maximum did not happen.

This why ice watchers wait for the summer minimum to post their conclusions. You can't really tell what's happening in full context until after the cycle is complete. Before that the line on a graph will move up or down, often surprisingly.


This is splitting hairs, it matters not at all what the short term trends are when the long term trend is towards no ice in the Arctic in the summer and almost anywhere else on the planet as the global climate continues to warm.

This video based on the sea ice volume data indicates just how dramatically it has decreased in the Arctic in the last 35 years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuKVk1gMJDg

It would take decades of slow accumulation of multi-year ice to rebuild the Arctic sea ice to previous levels which is virtually impossible when vast amounts of heat are being added to the global climate mostly to the oceans all the time.

And the more CO2 we emit into the atmosphere the warmer the eventual global temperature is going to be.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23693
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:23 pm
 


You appeared on this thread worried about "This years Arctic sea ice maximum".

I showed you why you shouldn't fret.

Technically my job is done.

Oh, but what the Hell...what are worried about now?

A scary YouTube video concerning the satellite ice record is keeping you up is it?

The satellite ice record is just 30 years old or so. We have no idea what normal is long term or should be, or how fast ice can go or return, or how often the cycle completes itself. We don't have records we can trust before the satellite record.

There is lots of evidence suggesting nothing is happening that hasn't happened before. For now, relax. Your basement won't be flooded when you wake up the morning from the global warming.

Go to sleep. :)


Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
Profile
Posts: 27
PostPosted: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:51 pm
 


N_Fiddledog wrote:
You appeared on this thread worried about "This years Arctic sea ice maximum".

I showed you why you shouldn't fret.

Technically my job is done.

Oh, but what the Hell...what are worried about now?

A scary YouTube video concerning the satellite ice record is keeping you up is it?

The satellite ice record is just 30 years old or so. We have no idea what normal is long term or should be, or how fast ice can go or return, or how often the cycle completes itself. We don't have records we can trust before the satellite record.

There is lots of evidence suggesting nothing is happening that hasn't happened before. For now, relax. Your basement won't be flooded when you wake up the morning from the global warming.

Go to sleep. :)


We have the science going back centuries that clearly links atmospheric carbon dioxide and moderation of the global climate.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plu ... as-effect/

Quote:
Our understanding of how certain atmospheric gases trap heat dates back almost 200 years to 1824 when Joseph Fourier described what we know as the greenhouse effect. Fourier, a French mathematician and physicist, asked what seems to be a simple question: why doesn’t the planet keep heating up as it receives sunlight? What is regulating our atmospheric temperature?

Knowing that heated surfaces emit radiation (thermal energy), Fourier reasoned that the Earth would emit radiation absorbed by the Sun back into space – resulting in an icy planet. There must be something regulating the temperature – emitting enough thermal energy to keep the planet from freezing and overheating. Not too hot, not too cold.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/

Quote:
In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases. Part of his experimentation included the construction of the first ratio spectrophotometer, which he used to measure the absorptive powers of gases such as water vapor, "carbonic acid" (now known as carbon dioxide), ozone, and hydrocarbons. Among his most important discoveries were the vast differences in the abilities of "perfectly colorless and invisible gases and vapors" to absorb and transmit radiant heat. He noted that oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen are almost transparent to radiant heat while other gases are quite opaque.


http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Arrhenius/

Quote:
In 1895, Arrhenius presented a paper to the Stockholm Physical Society titled, “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground.” This article described an energy budget model that considered the radiative effects of carbon dioxide (carbonic acid) and water vapor on the surface temperature of the Earth, and variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. In order to proceed with his experiments, Arrhenius relied heavily on the experiments and observations of other scientists, including Josef Stefan, Arvid Gustaf Högbom, Samuel Langley, Leon Teisserenc de Bort, Knut Angstrom, Alexander Buchan, Luigi De Marchi, Joseph Fourier, C.S.M. Pouillet, and John Tyndall.


The science behind the global climate and the effects of increasing levels of CO2 was already mature over a hundred years ago, Arrhenius' results are still within the margin of error of today's research.

So there's little doubt that by dramatically increasing atmospheric CO2 that the global climate will warm, the magnitude and rate being largely influenced by how much carbon dioxide is emitted and how fast. We're currently emitting tens of billions of tons a year of the gas, the entire global climate is rapidly shifting to a new and much warmer state. Which means that many species now present won't be here much longer as their habitat either disappears or migrates polewards faster than they can follow.

The human impact are also significant affecting such crucial things as food and water security all over the planet. Hundreds of millions of people will be left homeless from the inundation of densely populated coastal areas, we're rapidly creating a planet with much harsher living conditions for most of the species now present...including us. So yes it's very worrying if you actually value life on the planet.


It will be several decades before the atmosphere returns to a radiative balance with the additional CO2 we've emitted already, meaning decades of warming no matter what we do now. The Arctic sea ice pack is almost certainly doomed as a permanent factor in the region in the summer, it was down to slightly more than 3,000 square km in 2012 less than 1/5 the 1979 volume and the global warming is continuing.

Talking about global ice levels rebounding is about as scientifically relevant as discussing how many angels you can fit on the head of a pin.

Climate change is real, it's here and it's an existential threat.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 78 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.